On May 20, 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada found that employees of the House of Commons in Ottawa are, in fact, protected by Canadian human rights legislation. While the politicians thought their “immunity” extended to most forms of legislation, they were wrong. Looking back over the last couple of weeks, the ruling comes just in time.

Some people say, “everything important in life, I learned in kindergarten”. I feel like the opposite is true when it comes to many politicians these days. It’s more like “everything important about human rights, I didn’t learn from my Members of Parliament”. I’m not talking about the usual mud-slinging. For some strange reason, we’ve accepted that. I’m talking about the comments that affect the very human rights our government and our MPs are expected to uphold. Instead of slinging mud back, there are many lessons we can learn from their comments. Here are three examples that have arisen in just the last couple weeks.

Blonde Bombshell
When Belinda Stronach crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, we could and should have expected a lot of political commentary, both good and bad. However, when the front pages of newspapers trumpeted “Blonde Bombshell” and worse epithets, then we need to reflect on the difference in treatment for women and men. Years ago, when Lucien Bouchard crossed the floor to create the Bloc, no one commented on his hair colour or his sex appeal. When Keith Martin went from the Conservatives to the Liberals, no headline proclaimed “Brunette Bombshell!”

How do employees treat women in your workplace? Do people use different language for women than for men? Sure we’re allowed humour in the workplace, but if we’re still telling “blonde” jokes, we know towards whom the jokes are really directed. Women constantly hear simple and often subtle comments that reinforce the notion they are second class citizens. Men and women need to be sensitive to sexist terminology and be open to change when pointed out.

Gene Pool
As all parties tried to shore up their numbers in time for the budget vote in the House of Commons, accusations flew about offers to MPs if they would either cross the floor, abstain, or take new jobs that would take them away from Ottawa. Conservative MP Inky Mark, from Manitoba, said that he was offered a diplomatic post as a way of freeing up his vote in the Commons. When the government denied the claim, Treasury Board President and Liberal MP Reg Alcock told the press that if they were to go looking for diplomats, they would go "a little higher up the gene pool". Mr. Mark, a Chinese Canadian, took great offence and called a press conference to blast Mr. Alcock.

I’ve been around politics all my life and when I heard Mr. Mark’s outrage, I thought, “come on.” The “gene pool” comment was meant to be insulting, but it was Mark’s politics and party that was to be the brunt of the comments. But after Mr. Alcock apologized and explained he meant no offence, it got me thinking. How often have I been the recipient of racial insults in my own country? Hardly ever and for the few times, there was no sting with lasting effect. Yet for my formative years, I lived in a rural community in Manitoba, very close to Mr. Mark’s. Because there was one Chinese Canadian family, I remember the racial slurs and insults they received. I’m not picking on rural communities, I’m just remembering my experiences.

In the workplace, we talk about striving for equality and some day we’ll get a lot closer. However, until we do, it’s important to remember that some comments may be told the same way, but they aren’t always received the same way. Life experience will dictate how words are taken and whether they are viewed through slightly different coloured lenses. Instead of us rolling our eyes and thinking someone is playing the “race card” or the “gender card”, we might want to reflect on the different impact words have on different people. Mr. Mark made me think.

Japanese Insults
My Dad’s MP in Winnipeg is Steven Fletcher. Due to an accident, Mr. Fletcher is quadriplegic and his election to the House of Commons is a first and a testament to his constituents’ ability to look past disabilities and concentrate on abilities. While speaking at a veteran’s convention in Winnipeg on May 14th, Mr. Fletcher referred to Japanese soldiers as "Japs" and "bastards." At first he defended his comments, relating to the way his grandfather was treated as a Japanese prisoner of war, but shortly afterwards he apologized for the insult to Japanese Canadians.

When I read this, my first thoughts were “he should know better.” And then I thought, “why?” We are often surprised to hear hurtful comments from a person, like Mr. Fletcher, who would be outraged by insults and slurs about persons with disabilities. One expects people affected by discrimination and/or insults at some time in their lives would know better. Some do. Some don’t.

Stereotypes and prejudice are in all of us and it should come as no surprise when we hear it from anyone. As well, it’s important to call each person on derogatory comments. What’s in our heads doesn’t hurt anyone. What we let spew out is a different matter. Mr. Fletcher apologized for his comments and some Japanese Canadians are thinking about meeting with the MP.

It seems that “political correctness” has a whole new meaning. We may decide to hold our members of parliament to a new and respectful standard. Since that seems to be a tougher job to do, then perhaps we can just make sure we don’t learn from their bad habits.

.