Paganism, BDSM didn’t lead to denial of chauffeur’s permit, B.C. rights tribunal rules

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed the complaint of a Vancouver man who alleged he was denied a chauffeur’s permit due to his BDSM lifestyle and pagan beliefs.

According to the tribunal’s November 23 decision, Peter Hayes applied to the Vancouver police in May 2005 for the permit required for limo drivers.

In June 2005, he filed a complaint against the police board and Const. Kevin Barker, alleging that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religious beliefs and sexual orientation.

Hayes identifies his religion as paganism, and his sexual orientation as BDSM—bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadism and masochism.

Hayes was interviewed by Barker of the Vancouver police’s taxi unit on May 18, 2005. Their accounts of the conversation, according to the tribunal’s decision, diverge “at times markedly”.

Hayes testified in front of the tribunal that Barker commented on his black attire, and that the officer was “completely unprofessional, snarky and demeaning” and that he was “rude and insulting”.

Hayes alleged that Barker denied him the permit on the grounds that he was a “sex cult leader”.

Barker testified that he denied Hayes the permit because of concerns identified during a records check.

The concerns included charges of invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault involving children laid against Hayes in 1994—of which he was acquitted—and allegations that in 2003 Hayes was seen dancing or posing naked in his bedroom, in the view of neighbours and their small children.

Barker testified that he found a record of another incident, in which Hayes’s girlfriend alleged he had pushed and scratched her during an argument.

Tribunal panel member Heather MacNaughton wrote that “nothing about Constable Barker’s alleged demeanour supports an inference that he had any particular focus on Mr. Hayes’ religion or sexual orientation. Rather, it is consistent with someone who considered Mr. Hayes to be a risk to the vulnerable customers of a limousine service.”

MacNaughton concluded: “Taken together with all the other evidence, and for the reasons discussed above, we find that what Constable Barker did and wrote after his May 2005 interview with Mr. Hayes did not focus on Mr. Hayes’ religious beliefs or sexual orientation, and did not show that those formed any part of his reasons for denying Mr. Hayes a chauffeur’s permit.”

The tribunal did not make a finding on whether BDSM can be considered a sexual orientation under the Human Rights Code.

Comments

2 Comments

glen p robbins

Nov 27, 2010 at 1:47pm

Good God we waste alot of money on this ridiculous organization.

Why not have this fellow go to civil claims and let real Judges assess where due process begins and ends.

Politicos, you want to win control of government - I need to hear you say the BC Human Rights Tribunal goes in the shitter where it belongs--or you won't achieve what you want.

Way it is.

glen p robbins

Nov 27, 2010 at 3:24pm

I have read the decision - what a lot of work and cost for nothing. This is a quasi-criminal institution and save for the embarassment to the Petitioner - I might have appealed this decision.

First I would like to see the originating applications - because I am wondering if the applicant - respondent was aware of the way the application would be handled---which although I can respect the police officer (respondent's) concerns - there doesn't seem to be any set criterai or caveats on the front end. The Petitioner with a history that is unsavory seemed surprised. The interview seemed a little weird - conversations about clothes etc

Why would a guy with these difficulties knowingly fill out an application where he knows this information might come up. The greatest challenge for the Petitioner are the charges that proceeded to trial. The police officer is correct in my opinion, the acquittal is not enough. Yet the police officer indicated it was the complaint the nudity incident which jumped out at him. The evidence showed there were no further incidences on this front - so I don't understand why this would be the circumstance to jump out at the police officer (respondent).

The incidents of complaint with a person he was living with - end up appearing to be some type of weird toss up --- the complainant also attacked the Respondents and admitted to taking a slave role in the relationship.

In a professional interview - based on the police officer's position that the Chief Constable has the last word -- I would not have discussed the man's clothing (admitted to being the prospective employer's responsibility), I would not have brought up the nudity issue - nor the domestic situation (as unseemly as it might seem).

I would not have jerked around, I would have said Sir - you are applying for a chauffeur's license. In that job it is possible that you could come into contact with client's who are under the age of majority. Charges were brought against you in 1994 and though I appreciate the fact you were acquitted of these charges - we remain compelled out of an abundance of caution to the public to refuse you this license.

Thereafter, the Petitioner could have taken what ever steps he chose to (or not) to Appeal the decision.

The whole interview seemed ridiculous. In the future I would suggest there should not be an interview and the applicant (the Petitioner) should receive a letter in response setting out the initial decision on the application.

An Appeal process of some type could be made available.

This would easily avoid all of this nonsense. Just plain stupid imo