Kevin Marshall
September 24, 2014
A recent case of alleged discrimination on the part of an airline against a Muslim Canadian highlights the ever-present tension between the need for security measures and the problematic nature of certain screening practices.
“There are two competing objectives that must be grappled with,” says Marshall. “One is security, and the other is discrimination. The staff must stop people who may be a threat from entering the country, and yet they must do so in a way that’s non-discriminatory.”
In Yaffa v. Air Canada, 2014 CHRT 22 (CanLII), which is currently before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Mohamed Yaffa alleges Air Canada subjected him to “enhanced security screening,” including “enhanced questioning,” on six different occasions from March to June 2010 because of his race, nationality or ethnic origin, colour and religion.
Air Canada says it did not discriminate against Yaffa, but was simply following requirements related to American and Canadian no-fly lists in its interactions with him.
When considering how strict security measures should be, it depends on the industry. A bank’s policies on security will not be the same as an airport’s, for example.
“Airport security is concerned with protecting the public.”
“The dilemma they have is there are certain groups that may be more likely to be a threat over others. It is a problem, and they’re trained as best they can to detect a threat. At the same time, airports do take steps to pull people aside regardless of their age, skin colour or sex and ask them a lot of detailed questions.”
If there’s not a “proper balance” between safety protocol and discriminatory practices, “it can cause harm.”
“Every workplace should have policies in writing, especially larger companies, that conform with the Human Rights Code.”
“These policies can be useful, but they must be exercised with wisdom and consistency and compassion.”
Pointing to an extreme case in England, where sexual abuse went unreported due to social workers’ fears of being seen as discriminatory, Marshall says in such instances safety should always be the paramount concern.
