Bill C-150 was introduced in 1967, which decriminalized homosexuality. It was implemented after a long argument between proposers and opposing representatives (Dillbary & Edwards, 2019). For instance, the case of Everett George reinforced different points of view on same-sex sexual activity. Considering the reasons that contributed to the legalization of homosexuality, my perspective is that despite their positive contribution to society in terms of justice, they also have their opposing sides. Relevant claims as to why lesbianism, gays, bisexuals, and transgender were legalized were brought out by several MPs in Canada, but their negativities were not illustrated clearly.
The claim that people who are homosexual, after the implementation of Bill C-150, will not face criminalization offenses by the governmental authorities is logically valid (McCabe. et al., 2019). Besides, homosexuals will be protected from any adversary who tries to discriminate. However, there is some primary discrimination that Bill C-150 would not eradicate. For instance, non-homosexual people rarely change their attitude and mentality towards homosexuals. Therefore, some moral ethics, such as respect, love, care, and collaboration in different activities, will not be effectively achieved. Consequently, inequity becomes an upholding discriminative factor that may intrude on a society.
Additionally, Canadian MPs claiming that homosexual decriminalization creates a safety measure for people living with different normalcies, following their genetics, is an entirely advantageous perspective; this is true since it enables appreciative capabilities of other individuals who are homosexual (Baumle., et al. 2020). Moreover, it develops a society of different varieties of people and creates different socializing skills for the incoming generation. Although safety measures are created, discriminating factors, such as demoralization through gossiping, contribute to fear of exposure homosexuality to their peers. Words that point fingers, discouragement from elders, and ethical activities against equal consideration of homosexuals are some of the aspects that may take a long to address.
The understanding that same-sex legalization is a promoting factor of the physical, psychological, and social well-being of homosexuals is a viable and comprehensive thought that is effective to the inherent society. Physiological satisfaction is attained more when homosexuals are allowed to freely attain even though it is in a society with different perspectives on same-sex sexual activities; psychologically, beneficiaries of legalizing homosexuality, including acknowledging the presence of sexually different individuals, will be considered and appreciated (Drydakis, 2022). Moreover, improvisation of the social fit-in of homosexual people would be attained. However, the individual realization of whether one is homosexual or not is one of the vital, challenging aspects to attain, and this could deteriorate the personal confidence of an individual and, accompanied by fear of expression, may bring about psychological defects. Furthermore, the clarity of having many opponents of homosexuality is still one of the limiting factors in attaining sociological adjustments.
The claim by Canadian political leaders that decriminalization of homosexuality is a multifaceted factor in constructing an identity both nationally and internationally and building an international reputation is adequately viewed as genuine and evident. For instance, many countries, especially African countries, rarely consider homosexuality as part of their ethnicity, and some African tribes consider it a taboo and abomination; the ability to courageously challenge such outstanding claims from other nations to the extent of creating a protective bill of rights for the homosexual build’s a significant reputation of a country. Despite the reputation, some challenges arise (Baume., et al., 2020). To begin with, homosexuality is a new ability introduced in a society that grew with an understanding that homosexuality is an immoral act; trying to convince them otherwise is a difficult-to-attain task. Moreover, many of the opponents of legalizing homosexuality are considerate of only their point of view and not flexible enough to stand on the position of the individuals who are homosexual; this develops inequity in terms of social treatment in a country, which would, contrary, drag behind the reputation of the country.
Considering the historical view of the Canadians, homosexual people were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment considering the act of immorality, which initiated public rioting and other political conflicts; legalizing same-sex sexual activity contributed to peace in the country. Additionally, debates of whether to consider morality, justice, or both of them were made, and strategies made that could ensure favorable judgments are made in courts and other law-giving areas. There has been a moment of relaxation in the political activities in Canada after legalizing homosexuality. However, some Canadian citizens took advantage of this legalization to create forceful immoral acts on individuals who are not classified as homosexual (McCabe. et al., 2019). Moreover, society made poor judgment, especially in classifying people depending on their mode of dressing and lifestyles; this brought about other cases such as reputation destruction.
Introduction
All people should be treated right and equally without being considerate of their classes in any society, organization, or institution. The right to equality is a crucial indicator of collaboration and appreciation of the presence of each individual. In the case of Brooks and Smithson, equality is only appreciated and conditioned with proper upholding considerations from the story. The right to equality, including equal job promotion access, suitability to attend personal matters, and child welfare equality, among others, was not acknowledged. This thesis will delve into why Brooks should win the case she filed with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, considering the insignificant conditions proclaimed by Smithson for any employee to be promoted.
To begin with, Brook is denied the right to job promotion access. Considering her responsibility to focus on the way to update business logos and the experience gained by working at Smithson’s Consulting for four years, she is denied the chance of being promoted to a management position due to insignificant reasons; this is a clear indication of unfairness within the organization (Cole. 2022). Brooks’ loyalty, hard work, and persistence seem unconsidered, and under the suitable approaches, she should be compensated
Secondly, she faces gender discrimination compared to Smithson. The club she was supposed to attend for the work-related events was the Gentlemen’s. The clarity that she was uncomfortable attending this club, where the primary male employees were the only ones who received extra feedback and informal training, meant that if she were to go for promotion, she would deny her self-comfort ability (Shannon et al., 2019). Despite gender differences, all people should be considered while reinforcing the conditions that are necessary when aiming for achievements such as promotion. Being a lady, Brooks maintained self-dignity, and her employer should acknowledge this. Listening to the matters of the employees is a compulsory factor that should be critically considered in any policy in any organization. Smithson’s inability to consider Brook’s un-comfortability is the crucial reason for unfairness.
Brooks is also denied the equal right of caring for the kids as it is given to the male employees. Her excuse of being a mother of three school-aged children was genuine and should be considered before conditioning her to attend work-related events during off work. Family is the primary factor of why guardians and parents work; ensuring that they are cared for and their well-being is maintained and improved should be supported (Calabrese & Tan, 2020). Smithson’s condition of prioritizing event attendance rather than family needed to be more logical and competent. Maternity benefits of a woman should be appreciated and implemented to ensure the maintenance of the motherly nature of any lady. The right to maternal benefits was therefore denied to Brook’s
The right to personal consideration was not anticipated. Smithson inconsiderately enforces a standard that all employees, despite their personal matters, should participate in work-related events during off-work times and days (Budd, 2019). Management needs to take responsibility to ensure the comfort and the free time the employees have away from their responsibilities. Brooks’s un-comfortability and responsibilities should be considered. Besides, she needs a promotion to attend to her kids comfortably. The right to have your time should be endorsed and even compulsively implemented in any organization to ensure necessities such as good personal grooming and regular working times are not things to authorize under strict monition.
Moreover, sex discrimination is evident at Smithson’s. All employees in the organization are authorized to attend the related work event at a club, whose environment is typical for gentlemen; the management should have prioritized how ladies’ comfortability would be attained and administered. Gender equality is a multifaceted quality that is insisted upon by coordinating supervisors, ensuring that both genders are treated right and equally without facing discriminating activities such as “sex before employment,” among others (Budd, 2019). Brooks remaining at the entry-level with four years of working while other employees are promoted to other managing levels seems unequal, and chances are delivered to the employees.
Furthermore, Joe Smithson is biased. Biasness is among the evident indications of inadequate leadership skills; when biases intrigue an organization or institution, inhibition of development and growth of the organization will be negatively altered at the club where the work-related events were taking place. Expressly, the male employees were guaranteed extra feedback and informal training. Women at the club, as illustrated in the story, were used to perform exotic dances for the clientele (Beitz. 2020). This evident nature of the club demoralized Brooks’s capabilities to attend the event. Human psychological detection of gender bias is often accurate and precise on an average person whenever bias is portrayed. Brooks’ detection of this bias steered her process of filing a case against Smithson.
Moreover, Brooks should be more generous than other employees. As an employee, being burdened with much work over a long period, you have the right to raise a voice of complaint and consideration (Attwood. 2020). At Smithson’s, being at an entry level means dealing directly with corporate clients, which seems tiresome as compared to a management position where the primary work is to review and approve the logo designs produced by the entry-level employees, Brooks working at entry-level for four years without promotion while her peers are being promoted portrays an overworking picture towards the employee. Proper considerations for Brook should have been made to lessen the burden on her rather than rid her of the harsh atmosphere of her promotion chances.
Finally, Joe Smithson needs to be more competent towards Brooks. Despite Joe being discriminating and manipulating, he does not accept the inequality committed, but he further hires a legal counsel to defend him against the complainant. If the sued can accept the illegalities committed and reinforce comprehensive strategies that could approach the illegalities, the person should be less penalized (Darity & Mullen, 2022). Joe must be more competent and take the necessary steps to ensure fairness and equality for every employee and management.
Conclusion
Equality rights are the critical upholder for any development and growth of a company, organization, or institution. From the story, there are evident inequalities that are observed; these inequalities include denial of job promotion access, gender discrimination, denial of the right to take care of the kids as it is given to other employees, inequality of personal consideration, and bias. Moreover, over-dependency and incompetency are among the illustrated traits in the passage. Smithson’s company portrays these inequalities, especially from the employer, Joe Smithson, to his employee, Brooks. Brooks’s magnificent step of filing a complaint against the company was necessary and should be lawfully and investigative judged upon to attain justice for Brooks.
References
Attwood, B. (2020). Rights for Aborigines. Routledge.
Baumle, A. K., Badgett, M. L., & Boutcher, S. (2020). New research on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination: Effect of state policy on charges filed at the EEOC. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(8), 1135-1144.
Beitz, C. R. (2020). Political equality: An essay in democratic theory.
Budd, J. W. (2019). Employment with a human face: Balancing efficiency, equity, and voice. Cornell University Press.
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2020). Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of “rightful presence” for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning. Educational researcher, 49(6), 433-440.
Cole, M. (Ed.). (2022). Education, equality and human rights: issues of gender, ‘race,’ sexuality, disability and social class. Taylor & Francis.
Darity Jr, W. A., & Mullen, A. K. (2022). From here to equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the twenty-first century. UNC Press Books.
Dillbary, J. S., & Edwards, G. (2019). An empirical analysis of sexual orientation discrimination. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(1), 1–76.
Drydakis, N. (2022). Sexual orientation and earnings: a meta-analysis 2012–2020. Journal of Population Economics, 35(2), 409–440.
McCabe, S. E., Hughes, T. L., Matthews, A. K., Lee, J. G., West, B. T., Boyd, C. J., & Arslanian-Engoren, C. (2019). Sexual orientation discrimination and tobacco use disparities in the United States. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 21(4), 523–531.
Shannon, G., Jansen, M., Williams, K., Cáceres, C., Motta, A., Odhiambo, A., … & Mannell, J. (2019). Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health: Where are we at and why does it matter? The Lancet, 393(10171), 560-569.
write