Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
|} | |} | ||
== B. Protections | == B. Protections and Exemptions == | ||
The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to | The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to [[BC_Human_Rights_Code_(6:III)|Section III.A.1-7]]. However, for many of these protected areas, the HRC provides certain exceptions for which discrimination is not prohibited. | ||
Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html?resultIndex=1 Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 at paras 43-59 [''Nixon'']. (Please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers). | Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html?resultIndex=1 Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 at paras 43-59 [''Nixon'']. (Please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers). | ||