| |
 |
|
Today is:
Sat, 04 - Feb, 2012:
|
This day in 1906...
Gladys Strum, pioneer in Saskatchewan and Canadian politics, was born
Read More...
|
Gladys Grace Mae Lamb was born on February 4, 1906 in Gladstone, Manitoba. At 16, she became a teacher in Saskatchewan, where she met her husband Warner Strum. Early in their marriage, Warner contracted tuberculosis and Gladys got an understanding of the deficiencies in Canada?s health care system. During travels to New Zealand, Strum gained an appreciation for that country?s progressive health care practices, which prompted her to get involved in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) party in Canada. Although defeated in her bids for the legislature in 1938 and 1944 (the latter by six votes to Premier Patterson), Strum was actively involved in Canada?s first socialist government when Tommy Douglas became premier in the June 1944 election. The Saskatchewan CCF elected Strum president, making her the first woman president of a political party in Canada. The following year, she was elected the CCF Member of Parliament for Qu?Appelle, Saskatchewan, the only woman in the House of Commons during that session and the fifth woman MP elected to Ottawa. Among other achievements, Strum was successful in convincing the speaker of Parliament that women need no longer wear hats or handkerchiefs in the gallery. She was also famous for her line, ?No one has ever objected to women working; the only thing they have ever objected to is paying women for working.? Strum was defeated in 1949. However, she made her way back into politics in 1960 as a member of the Saskatchewan Legislature from Saskatoon. During that session she was proud to vote for the legislation that created Canada?s first socialized medical system. Strum died in Penticton, B.C. on August 15, 2005.
|
|
 |
Since the courts have ruled that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex (or gender), they have continued to interpret harassment to cover other protected forms of discrimination covered under human rights legislation. What other types? Depending on the provincial, territorial or federal human rights legislation, your list is made up from a number of the protected grounds noted below:
Age |
Physical Disability |
Ancestry |
Sex |
Criminal conviction |
Political belief |
Race |
Aboriginal origin |
Marital status |
Gender |
Social condition |
Family status |
Colour |
Sexual orientation |
Language |
Creed |
Mental disability |
Citizenship |
Religion |
Source of income |
Civil status |
Ethnicity |
Linguistic background |
Nationality |
Pregnancy |
Irrational fear of illness or disease |
Place of origin |
If an employee is being harassed, but that harassment doesn’t qualify under the protected grounds of discrimination, the human rights commission will not be able to legally assist that employee. The person being harassed and her employer will want to deal with the problem somehow, but it won't be through human rights. Human rights commissions are designed to take care only of issues under their jurisdictions – not all problems that ail us.
If a provincial, territorial or federal commission does not offer all the protected grounds, be aware that a person can argue a new case to forge new ground. In Alberta, Delwin Vriend was fired from his job because he was gay. Since sexual orientation was not a protected ground in Alberta, Vriend was unable initially to secure protection from the province's human rights commission. But after many appeals, the Supreme Court of Canada "read in" protection of sexual orientation to the province's legislation, and the province did not attempt to overturn the decision.
So even though you don’t see sexual orientation listed as a category in Alberta, Alberta's Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has made it clear that heterosexual men and women, gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women will get protection if they have a complaint based on their sexual orientation.
If I were in charge of a business, I wouldn’t lose sleep over whether an employee might end up influencing the Supreme Court to change laws, but I would make sure employees don't feel they have to go elsewhere to resolve internal matters. Just because harassment based on hair loss is not protected by law doesn't mean you should allow one employee to call another employee "cue-ball."
Contact Stephen today |
|
|
