Because Lemieux is not there anymore so they have nothing to complain about. The problem has been removed.
How do you know it's anti trans activists and right wingers?
What they need to do is get Queens Park to enact a provision in the Human Rights Code to remove any arguable protections for egregiously freaky attire and presentation. So again this appears to be Duggo.
Lawyers have differing opinions and Levitt may have been grandstanding.
But you're not an employment lawyer or a board member. So it's easy for you to say that.
Agreed. I mean, why is the board dragging their heels on this. I can only surmise they are worried about the wrongful dismissal aspect, or a human rights tribunal. Again, I still wonder if this person was facing disciplinary action or something like that, and took up the Kayla Lemiuex persona to make it that much harder for the board to axe them....
Not a lawyer, but could this type of law survive a Supreme Court challenge? Sort of like the right for women to go topless...
Labour arbitrators may be liberal minded for the most part, but not so much so that they wouldn't enforce a school dress code that prevented the wearing of prosthetic breasts, except to replace breasts that have been surgically altered or removed for medical reasons. This joker is not going to be able to produce a doctor to testify at an arbitration hearing that this guy needs to wear his halloween costume for his mental health. Even a liberal arbitrator is going to have disdain for the mockery this guy's behaviour presents. His behaviour is actually an obstacle for genuinely trans individuals who want to present as a credible woman that this guy is intentionally presenting a caricature, thereby sexualizing the classroom environment.
He's not a woman first of all.
That's messed up.
They're clearly getting legal advice from real lawyers that it isn't as easy as you make it seem.
Sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind and you have to nip it in the butt. This nonsense is the culmination of all the bullying by extremist trans groups, and it's only the beginning, this is the start of a very slippery slope that's escalating fast.
They are getting the same legal advice I've outlined (from Hicks Morley, no doubt). The only things stopping the Board from taking that advice are: a) future political ambitions of the trustees (largely to run as NDP or Liberal candidates), b) incompetence as administrators, and c) the absence of any mechanism for accountability for trustees other than elections (but the truth is that hardly anyone pays attention to Trustee races, and therefore incumbents are returned at a very high rate, no matter how badly they performed their functions).
Thank you.
Certainly the object of terrorism is to create terror. If a terrorist can accomplish that without the expense or the risk of getting caught setting off bombs, I think they would do so. If nothing short of a real bomb would create terror, I would agree with you.
Kids don't issue bomb threats to schools.
Well, that's exactly how it would play out in a hearing, so the decision maker will have to make the same decision. Not that complicated. You ask for a medical opinion as to whether the individual is behaving according to their bona fide belief that they are transexual and, further, whether the wearing of the particular prosthetic is recommended by the doctor for the benefit of the individual's mental health. You also ask the doctor if Lemieux's mental health poses any limitation on his ability to function as a teacher or whether it poses any risks to students. If Lemieux can overcome those hurdles (which I doubt), you then move on to whether the Board can reasonably accomodate this individual's mental health needs.
