Muslim taxi drivers and guide dogs

[Great Helmsman]

Muslim leader fears conflict of rights in new B.C. taxi policy

The new taxi bill of rights for Metro Vancouver introduced earlier this week could pit the rights people who rely on guide dogs against the rights of drivers whose religious beliefs prohibit them from contact with the animals, a Muslim leader said.
Among the provisions listed in the taxi bill of rights announced on Wednesday by Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon are the right for passengers to travel with a guide dog and a new enhanced trip refusal regulation that could see drivers fined $288.
That combination could mean problems for some Muslim drivers who believe it's against their religion to come into contact with dogs, said Aziz Khaki, the vice-chair of the Muslim Canadian Federations.
"It's a clear, clear case of discrimination and insensitivity on behalf of the authorities to try to punish the person without understanding the person's own belief," Khaki told CBC News on Thursday.
When faced with this dilemma, Muslim drivers who believe their religion prohibits them from coming into contact with dogs should be able to call another taxi for the passenger without facing a fine, said Khaki.
"You cannot say, just because they refuse it, he should be fined. You should respect the belief of a person. Whether right or wrong, it is his interpretation."
Jason Gratl, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, agrees that the Ministry of Transportation should revisit the new policy.
"It wouldn't take much for the government to include an exception for religious or possibly medical issues associated with the passage of dogs," said Gratl.
The taxi bill of rights aims to improve safety and service for taxi passengers are now required to display the bill of rights on a decal posted on the rear passenger window.
The taxi bill of rights states taxi passengers have the right to:

Be picked up and transported to their stated destination by any available on duty taxi driver
Pay the posted rate by cash, or accepted credit card or TaxiSaver voucher.
A courteous driver who provides assistance, if requested.
Travel with an assistance dog or portable mobility aid.
A taxi that is clean, smoke free and in good repair.
Direct the route, or expect the most economical route.
A quiet atmosphere, upon request.
A detailed receipt, when requested. And taxi drivers are required to obey all laws. They do have the right to refuse to transport a passenger:

To avoid contravening a law or condition of licence.
To protect the driver's, or any passenger's, health or safety.
If the passenger is acting in an offensive manner.
If the passenger refuses to provide a deposit, if requested.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/01/bc-taxi-discrimation.html?ref=rss

Whose rights should be given priority in this instance, or is there some easy way to accommodate both?

[rouchambeau]

I think the proposal brought up by Khaki is a good one; have the Muslim drivers call for another taxi.

[Reuben]

It is completely clear whose side we should be on here. What if i decided that i believed that I was forbidden to come into contact with blind people. Would it be the obligation of society to accomodate that stupid and discriminatory belief.

[Jazzratt]

It is completely clear whose side we should be on here. What if i decided that i believed that I was forbidden to come into contact with blind people. Would it be the obligation of society to accomodate that stupid and discriminatory belief.

This.

Why do we need to compromise with the religious loonies again?

[Lenin II]

I could give a damn what some guy's religion says about this or that. His job is a taxi driver who is supposed to transport people around. Anyway, what happens if someone needs to rush their dog to an animal hospital? And who says the driver has to touch the dog, anyway?

[LSD]

I don't see why this needs to turn into an issue. We can all agree that religious prohibitions against "contacting" dogs are irrational, but then people have the right to be irrational, so long as their irrationality doesn't harm anyone else.

In this kind of situation, when rights conflict, society's obliation should be to find an optimal compromise. Blind people (like all people) have a right to catch a cab, but they don't nescessarily have the right to catch a specific cab.

We've always tolerated a certain degree of flexibility in terms of individual provider responsibility, so long as the service remains performed. That is, a black man should not be obligated to drive a klansman in full robes, to do so would be offensive to any standard of decency. On the other hand, that klansman still has the right to take a taxi. So the black cabbie should simply radio to his dispatcher to send another car.

Now we may judge a muslim man's desire to avoid dogs to be less understandable than a black man's desire to avoid racists; but it's not our place to judge the "legitimacy" of offenses. In both cases, the driver has a fundamental right to not be coerced into a situation which causes him distress, so long as alternate arrangements can be made to preseve the fare's rights.

And since urgenting another car is very easy in a city like Vancouver, such arrangements pose no problem.

[Pawn Power]

In both cases, the driver has a fundamental right to not be coerced into a situation which causes him distress, so long as alternate arrangements can be made to preseve the fare's rights.

What if an "alternate arrangement cannot be made? That is, what if all the available cab drivers, in your example, feel uncomforatable picking up the klansman? Should one of them "bite the bullet" to uphold the klansmans "right" to a cab (though I doubt such a "right" exists)?

[LSD]

Yes, although it's hard to concieve of a situation in which an individual causes irrational offense to absolutely everyone. But even then, yeah, sometimes, you gotta' fare an asshole. Such is the life of aa cabbie.

[Raúl Duke]

Why not just don't touch the damn dog...?

[lvatt]

I don't see why this needs to turn into an issue. We can all agree that religious prohibitions against "contacting" dogs are irrational, but then people have the right to be irrational, so long as their irrationality doesn't harm anyone else.

I'm of the opinion that someone's irrationality (read: archaic religious beliefs) will always harm other people. Especially those who depend on them, such as their children.

The world is filled with horror stories of children groing up in a repressive and dictatorial atmosphere with very religious parents who try to force "religious morals" on them. Sometimes I wonder if they even know the emotional damage they're causing their kids.

[Black Dagger]

Why not just don't touch the damn dog...?

Because it's against their religious beliefs - it says as much in the topic post.


I'm of the opinion that someone's irrationality (read: archaic religious beliefs) will always harm other people.

This position is itself irrational.


The world is filled with horror stories of children groing up in a repressive and dictatorial atmosphere with very religious parents who try to force "religious morals" on them.

But it's not just the children of religious people who grow up in a 'repressive and dictatorial atmosphere' with their parents morals hoisted on to them (most parents do the latter) - so why single out the religious above all else?

[Raúl Duke]

I know but if you don't touch the dog it won't effect those beliefs.

There's a difference between touching a dog and letting a dog ride the taxi...

You can have the owner handle the dog and put it in the car.

Although letting them call another taxi cab is not a bad solution.

[lvatt]

Because it's against their religious beliefs - it says as much in the topic post.



This position is itself irrational.



But it's not just the children of religious people who grow up in a 'repressive and dictatorial atmosphere' with their parents morals hoisted on to them (most parents do the latter) - so why single out the religious above all else?

Personal experience I guess. I've learned the hard way how utterly destructive it is for children to grow up with fundamentalist parents. Also, as a volunteer in an organisation that helps people with mental illnesses, I've seen countless cases of children that had their lives ruined by emotional problems that could be traced back to overprotective or fundamentalist parents. I've seen and heard of some heart-wrenching cases of young adults who had leanred to hate themselves and didn't have an ounce of self-confidence because they grew up with their parents telling them how wrong and corrupted they were. I've seen people who showed early signs of mental illnesses but whose parents refused to get them help because they believed psychiatry was immoral, only to have their kids problems escalate to tragic conditions.

In my legal studies I've read cases of parents who refused insulin treatments to their kids (thus putting their lives at risk) because they had a mistrust of medicine and believed only religion could heal their kids.

Religion often comes with intolerance, ignorance and bigotry of the highest order. With the life I've had and the experiences I've made with everyone around me, it is impossible for me to accept religion of any kind. I've seen its destructive power with my own eyes, not only on myself but on other vulnerable people as well. I don't care if someone wants to be religious, but I can't accept lives to be ruined because of parents who are too intolerant. Kids are extremely vulnerable and dependant on others... in my mind, there is no excuse for someone who causes them such pain because of their "beliefs."

[Great Helmsman]

The taxi driver who originally complained about being forced to carry guide dogs has since been the victim of threats and racist verbal attacks. :(

[RNK]

Naturally. There are always reactionaries and racists lining up, waiting to pounce on the next instance of a non-white doing something they don't like.