About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 Hum. Rts. Dig. 1 (2019)

handle is hein.journals/hurtsdg20 and id is 1 raw text is: Hun In Rig `s Di est Vol. 20 No. 1 January 2019 EDUCATION - PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES - ad- mission to preschool school denied - preschool discrimi- nates on the basis of religion - RELIGION AND CREED - access to education - distribution of religious materials in school - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION - duty to accommodate short of undue hardship RETALIATION - reprisal for complaining about discrimi- natory conduct - test for retaliation - POLITICAL BELIEF - definition of political belief - EXEMPTIONS - human rights legislation - DISCRIMINATION - bonafidejustifi- cation - PARTIES - name anonymized to protect privacy - removing respondents - DAMAGES - damages as- sessed for injury to dignity and self-respect The B. C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Bowen Island Montessori School (BIMS) discriminated against Gary Mangel and Mai Yasue and their child A on the grounds of religion, race, ancestry and family status. BIMS is a non-profit society that offers pre-school and kindergarten programs for children aged 2.5 to 6 years of age. BIMS is a Montessori school, which permits children to choose their own activities and offers a wide range of materials to teach them reading, writing, mathematics, science, geography, practical life, and sensorial develop- ment. Throughout the year BIMS involves the children in various celebrations and cultural holidays. Mr. Mangel is of Jewish ancestry and Dr. Yasue is of Japa- nese ancestry. Their daughter, Child A, is of mixed race. Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue are atheists. Child A was en- rolled in BIMS in 2014. Around Christmas time, Mr. Man- gel and Dr. Yasue became involved in a conversation with teachers at BIMS because of their concern that there was an emphasis in the school's curriculum on Judeo-Christian and Eurocentric holidays and traditions. They indicated that, as atheists, they were uncomfortable with anything in the classroom that was rooted in religion. However, the Tribunal found that the complaint that was filed by Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue was not about the curriculum. Dr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue testified that although they found it offensive to have Christmas in the pre-school curriculum, they could negotiate and live with some of that, as they understood that there were other parents who had different points of view. The complaint was addressed specifically to the fact that in June of 2015, following various exchanges throughout the year about the inclusion of religious holidays in the curriculum, BIMS required Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue to sign a letter before they would per- mit Child A to register for pre-school at BIMS the fol- lowing year. There is a difference between the parties regarding exactly what Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue were being asked to agree to, as a condition of their daughter returning to school. BIMS argued that the letter sought the complainants' agreement to stop asking BIMS to completely remove all celebrations rooted in religion from its cultural cur- riculum. Dr. Yasue and Mr. Mangel claimed that the letter sought their broad acceptance of all aspects of BIMS' cultural curriculum, such that they could no longer raise any disagreement regarding the curricu- lum with BIMS. Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue refused to sign the letter. No other parents were asked to sign such a letter, and they were not comfortable with making an agreement that seemed to make it impossi- ble for them to discuss concerns about parts of the curriculum with the teachers. Child A was not enrolled at BIMS for the fall of 2015. The Tribunal found that Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue reasonably understood that if Child A was to be regis- tered, they would be significantly, if not entirely, lim- ited in their ability to raise issues about the cultural aspects of the program. This was not a limitation im- posed on other parents, who would be free to raise issues in their interactions with BIMS regarding their children's education. The Tribunal found that the re- quirement to sign the letter had an adverse effect on Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue and on Child A who lost the opportunity to attend BIMS. The Tribunal found further that the protected charac- teristics of religion, race, and ancestry were at the heart of the debate between the parents and BIMS. The communications were focused on religion, and more specifically on the disproportionate representa- tion of cultural celebrations Before they would permit ChildA rooted in Euro- to registerfor pre-school the fol- Christian be- lowingyear, BIMS required the liefs. In this complainants to sign a letter, case, these mat- which precluded them from ters are bound discussing with BIMS their up with race concerns about the cultural and ancestry as program of the school. well, since the worldviews which Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue wished to discuss with BIMS were the product of their lived ex- periences as people of Japanese and Jewish ancestry, who are also atheists. The Tribunal concluded that BIMS was not justified in requiring Mr. Mangel and Dr. Yasue to sign the June 2015 letter. It was not an undue hardship for BIMS to communicate with these parents about their con- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTER 1-11 PUBLISHER OF CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most