In the case of Anderson V. YMCA of Barrie, I will prove there were no grounds for discrimination based on sex
The fitness facilities in Barrie offer fitness for both men and women, and of course, women only. In the case of Anderson V. the YMCA of Barrie, Anderson and O’Neill brought the complaint that women were unable to buy premium memberships. We’re talking about the YMCA, which stands for Young Men’s Christian Association, women were still able to use the facilities and they had women’s change rooms and shower facilities available. The only difference was that they lacked amenities such as an additional change room facility, including perhaps a sauna and such other things offered with premium memberships. This would not prohibit them from the use of the facility itself, which is really the main intention for going, or at least it should be. When I searched an online directory for fitness centers in Barrie, 12 out of the 34 fitness centers were for Women ONLY! The others were all for both men and women, such as Allendale Recreation Center. I challenge you to find even 6 fitness centers in one city that are men’s only, which would be half of what I found for women’s only. It was quite easy to find 12 women’s only, and those that I counted were only those obvious ones, whose name clearly stated it was for women only, such as: Ladies workout Express, and ExpressFit for Women. I did not see one out of the 34 that only offered fitness only for men.
Women were allowed into the YMCA, which was a step forward for an organization that was men’s only to begin with, and a sign of non-discrimination compared to the YWCA, who is still closing the doors to men. Having a women’s changing facility, and opening all of its programs to women is expressing equality. The fact of building a premium facility meant only to provide further luxury services and amenities which are above and beyond the necessities of the YMCA’s members. Building these facilities would bring about large expenses, not to mention the quite major renovation.
Furthermore, the YMCA defended the non-existence of a Women’s Plus facility on the basis that women members, when surveyed, had not expressed an interest in one. This information came straight from the case file. Clearly, if only Anderson and O’Neill wanted this expensive renovation, the demand would not have permitted its construction.
So with this, there was no reason that the YMCA of Barrie should have been forced to create extra facilities and amenities for women, when there were plenty of other availabilities in the area.
Curves, fitness for women is yet another institution (also found in Barrie) that only offers fitness for women, however also provide a separate facility for men under the same corporation, BUT not curves itself. This is just like the YMCA by the fact that they have a YWCA, except for the fact that Curves doesn’t let men into the facility, yet the YMCA (young men’s Christian association) lets women into their facilities. The YWCA’s in Kitchener for example are for women and children only. They do not provide services for men equal to the services for women. So I bring about a question, wasn’t this case supposed to be about EQUALITY?
Adding to this, institutions have rights of their own. They are able to offer their services to specific areas of the public. If you dictated what the YMCA had to provide as far as services, then you would have to follow through with this precedent for countless other organizations and institutions. Let’s just take a look at any women’s fitness centers, should they have to build facilities for men? Or how about an even a broader aspect, we saw a women play on the PGA Tour for golf, yet men are definitely not aloud to go on the WPGA Tour where there is surly money to be made for numerous men. This would also go for countless other sporting organizations. And how about the United Negro College Fund, should they not be forced to provide funds for whites?
Allot comes down to institutional right. Institutions have the right to provide specific services, aimed towards certain areas of the public. Forcing an institution to provide services based on a certain sex goes against the institutions rights to focus their services towards a particular area of the community. Again it comes back to the fact that there are many other institutions that do so, and aren’t penalized for it. This is what was violated for the YMCA, and so therefore including all the other particulars, there were no solid grounds for making the complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
This case involves the principals of affirmative action. However, Affirmative action groups are discriminatory. So if Anderson and O’Neill claimed they were discriminated against, bringing in such affirmative action to force the YMCA into renovation would further spoils institutional rights. That is the real discrimination, telling an institution that they have to change simply because the complainants are women.
At that I rest my case
Thank you Madame/ Mr. speaker
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Thursday, June 7, 2007
The National DNA Databank: Affirmative Debate
The National DNA Databank
Good afternoon Madame Speaker. Today I bring before you an issue of Canadian security, justice, and freedom that affects every man woman and child in Canada. On June 30, 2000, the National DNA Databank was created in Ottawa. This Databank contains DNA profiles from adults and youths convicted of serious offenses, as well as a crime scene index of DNA profiles from unsolved crimes. This information is kept highly confidential, but legislation allows the data to be cross-referenced with other law enforcement databanks. While this databank is an important tool in solving crimes, some may see it as a violation of civil liberties.
Today, I am here along with my affirmative partner, to say that the National DNA Databank is a justifiable infringement of civil liberties.
Let me start out by saying this, having a DNA databank does not only greatly increase public safety, but it also PROTECTS individual rights. I believe that perhaps the most notable claim in free societies is that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent person. Just on this aspect alone, the idea of a National DNA databank can be justified, as DNA has set many innocent free, and contributed to rightful convictions.
Once a DNA databank gets started, and material is added, it becomes a major deterrent for criminals. Of course, one of the main goals in society would be to prevent crime from even occurring. If a criminal knows that even a single hair or drop of sweat found at a crime scene will be stored and come back to be used against him in the future, no matter how far that may be, fewer crimes will be committed. This goes on top of the fact that there will be more sound convictions, and that serious offender like rapists can be put behind bars before they re-offend.
Now, straying away from criminals, potential suspects in crimes will be benefited as well as saved from humiliation and costs which result from an investigation and trial. Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, states, and I quote “We typically and routinely eliminate approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of the suspects who the police have centered on in their investigation using our DNA analysis”
DNA Data bases are much more reliable than police procedures. They vastly enhance the likelihood that those who are guilty will be convicted, and that those who are innocent will be rapidly cleared.
DNA is now considered so highly reliable, that the evidence is not contested. In the United States, databanks are climbing up to a fairly large scale, and have proven themselves by not only putting closure on cases, but by setting large numbers of wrongfully convicted inmates free.
My question is now, why hasn’t Canada adopted this same system to assure that justice is served. First, unless one merely views the government as some kind of cold-blooded enemy, there is no reasonable grounds to believe that it will use DNA collected to find out about people's family history, illnesses, and for other unintended purposes. Furthermore, by making the government responsible for this data, that is not saying they wont be limited by law and scrutinized.
Another dismissible argument comes up that DNA collection violates the right to reasonable search and seizure. However, it is also stated that if it is in public interest, it is found reasonable. Isn’t that what criminal acts violate, society?
Suspects of a crime have diminished rights compared to innocent people not involved in a criminal investigation. Suspects are allowed to be fingerprinted without their consent, and fingerprinting is a measure taken to incriminate the right suspect, so if this is aloud, than surely DNA tests can be made to be just as minimally intrusive. When it all comes down to seeking justice, there is no obvious reason why a suspect should not be tested and included in the databank. After all, if the suspect were to be innocent, they would have nothing to worry, and it would ONLY benefit them.
Now we all know that there have been wrongful convictions in the past. It is shown that there is an increasing number of inmates requesting DNA tests to prove their innocence. Now, as I stated earlier, we all have a notion to protect the innocent, so this right should be made more available for inmates. All it would take, is adopting a system in which each inmate can receive ONE test, that’s all it takes, and it has potential to save countless people from wrongful sentences.
Now, accepting that there have been wrongful convictions, having databanks and enforcing testing within 14 days after a crime will ensure that the innocent are not incarcerated in the first place. Which would be the ultimate goal.
When it comes to a violation of privacy, I ask you this: if someone were to walk naked down the street, they have little reason to complain if others see their private parts. Criminals who leave behind their DNA at a crime scene have no more reasonable right to privacy than if fingerprints were to be left and collected.
As I have just expressed, having this system will not only help convict criminals, but it will prevent crime, stop wrongful convictions, free the innocent and protect individual right.
So I ask you this, are you on the side of common good and the goals of society, or are you out to fend for criminals and put forth doubt in our government and our country.
Thank you Madame speaker, I now stand for cross examination.
Lines of Questioning
1) Would you agree with what I had stated earlier, in that a free society believes that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free than to incriminate one innocent person?
2) Do you acknowledge the fact that there have been people wrongfully convicted?
3) would you agree that in many cases, the reason for this wrongful conviction, could have been due to a lack of solid and undeniable evidence?
4) Do you acknowledge the fact that DNA evidence is now rarely contested?
5) you would agree that if DNA evidence had been present in many of these cases, it, in all likelihood would have prevented a wrongful conviction?
1) Do you believe that every person has the right to a fair trial?
2) Do you think that you could call it a fair trial if evidence that could lead to the truth wasn’t included?
3) Would you consider an inmate still guilty even if evidence was found down the road that would prove his or her innocence?
4) So, do you believe that inmates in these situations should have a chance to prove their innocence through DNA testing?
5) So would you agree with me that it would be better of to prove their innocence before they step behind bars?
1) Do you believe that Canada is one of the best countries in the world as far as civilian rights and international safety?
2) Do you have a trust in our government for keeping our personal information, e.g. health information, safe and secure and out of wrongful eyes? [ if NO----- (are they out to get us)]
3) Then Would the collection and distribution of DNA material not be trusted in the hand of Canadian government?
1)Would you agree with me when I say that DNA evidence can quickly narrow down suspects?
2) Would you agree with me that eliminating innocent suspects from an investigation saves both time and money?
3) Would you agree that eliminating innocent suspects saves them from the humiliation of a trial they didn’t deserve?
4) So would it be fair to say that a databank could save people from these types of humiliations and violations which would further ensure their security?
IF NO- so you don’t think that DNA evidence could eliminate certain suspects? You just agreed previously that investigations take up time and cause humiliation for innocent suspects.
4) would it now be safe to say that a National DNA databank would provide safety for the innocent, and punishment for the true criminal.
As we can now see, it seems that the only people who could possibly oppose this introduction would be criminals
Good afternoon Madame Speaker. Today I bring before you an issue of Canadian security, justice, and freedom that affects every man woman and child in Canada. On June 30, 2000, the National DNA Databank was created in Ottawa. This Databank contains DNA profiles from adults and youths convicted of serious offenses, as well as a crime scene index of DNA profiles from unsolved crimes. This information is kept highly confidential, but legislation allows the data to be cross-referenced with other law enforcement databanks. While this databank is an important tool in solving crimes, some may see it as a violation of civil liberties.
Today, I am here along with my affirmative partner, to say that the National DNA Databank is a justifiable infringement of civil liberties.
Let me start out by saying this, having a DNA databank does not only greatly increase public safety, but it also PROTECTS individual rights. I believe that perhaps the most notable claim in free societies is that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free rather than imprison one innocent person. Just on this aspect alone, the idea of a National DNA databank can be justified, as DNA has set many innocent free, and contributed to rightful convictions.
Once a DNA databank gets started, and material is added, it becomes a major deterrent for criminals. Of course, one of the main goals in society would be to prevent crime from even occurring. If a criminal knows that even a single hair or drop of sweat found at a crime scene will be stored and come back to be used against him in the future, no matter how far that may be, fewer crimes will be committed. This goes on top of the fact that there will be more sound convictions, and that serious offender like rapists can be put behind bars before they re-offend.
Now, straying away from criminals, potential suspects in crimes will be benefited as well as saved from humiliation and costs which result from an investigation and trial. Dr. Paul Ferrara, Director of the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, states, and I quote “We typically and routinely eliminate approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of the suspects who the police have centered on in their investigation using our DNA analysis”
DNA Data bases are much more reliable than police procedures. They vastly enhance the likelihood that those who are guilty will be convicted, and that those who are innocent will be rapidly cleared.
DNA is now considered so highly reliable, that the evidence is not contested. In the United States, databanks are climbing up to a fairly large scale, and have proven themselves by not only putting closure on cases, but by setting large numbers of wrongfully convicted inmates free.
My question is now, why hasn’t Canada adopted this same system to assure that justice is served. First, unless one merely views the government as some kind of cold-blooded enemy, there is no reasonable grounds to believe that it will use DNA collected to find out about people's family history, illnesses, and for other unintended purposes. Furthermore, by making the government responsible for this data, that is not saying they wont be limited by law and scrutinized.
Another dismissible argument comes up that DNA collection violates the right to reasonable search and seizure. However, it is also stated that if it is in public interest, it is found reasonable. Isn’t that what criminal acts violate, society?
Suspects of a crime have diminished rights compared to innocent people not involved in a criminal investigation. Suspects are allowed to be fingerprinted without their consent, and fingerprinting is a measure taken to incriminate the right suspect, so if this is aloud, than surely DNA tests can be made to be just as minimally intrusive. When it all comes down to seeking justice, there is no obvious reason why a suspect should not be tested and included in the databank. After all, if the suspect were to be innocent, they would have nothing to worry, and it would ONLY benefit them.
Now we all know that there have been wrongful convictions in the past. It is shown that there is an increasing number of inmates requesting DNA tests to prove their innocence. Now, as I stated earlier, we all have a notion to protect the innocent, so this right should be made more available for inmates. All it would take, is adopting a system in which each inmate can receive ONE test, that’s all it takes, and it has potential to save countless people from wrongful sentences.
Now, accepting that there have been wrongful convictions, having databanks and enforcing testing within 14 days after a crime will ensure that the innocent are not incarcerated in the first place. Which would be the ultimate goal.
When it comes to a violation of privacy, I ask you this: if someone were to walk naked down the street, they have little reason to complain if others see their private parts. Criminals who leave behind their DNA at a crime scene have no more reasonable right to privacy than if fingerprints were to be left and collected.
As I have just expressed, having this system will not only help convict criminals, but it will prevent crime, stop wrongful convictions, free the innocent and protect individual right.
So I ask you this, are you on the side of common good and the goals of society, or are you out to fend for criminals and put forth doubt in our government and our country.
Thank you Madame speaker, I now stand for cross examination.
Lines of Questioning
1) Would you agree with what I had stated earlier, in that a free society believes that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free than to incriminate one innocent person?
2) Do you acknowledge the fact that there have been people wrongfully convicted?
3) would you agree that in many cases, the reason for this wrongful conviction, could have been due to a lack of solid and undeniable evidence?
4) Do you acknowledge the fact that DNA evidence is now rarely contested?
5) you would agree that if DNA evidence had been present in many of these cases, it, in all likelihood would have prevented a wrongful conviction?
1) Do you believe that every person has the right to a fair trial?
2) Do you think that you could call it a fair trial if evidence that could lead to the truth wasn’t included?
3) Would you consider an inmate still guilty even if evidence was found down the road that would prove his or her innocence?
4) So, do you believe that inmates in these situations should have a chance to prove their innocence through DNA testing?
5) So would you agree with me that it would be better of to prove their innocence before they step behind bars?
1) Do you believe that Canada is one of the best countries in the world as far as civilian rights and international safety?
2) Do you have a trust in our government for keeping our personal information, e.g. health information, safe and secure and out of wrongful eyes? [ if NO----- (are they out to get us)]
3) Then Would the collection and distribution of DNA material not be trusted in the hand of Canadian government?
1)Would you agree with me when I say that DNA evidence can quickly narrow down suspects?
2) Would you agree with me that eliminating innocent suspects from an investigation saves both time and money?
3) Would you agree that eliminating innocent suspects saves them from the humiliation of a trial they didn’t deserve?
4) So would it be fair to say that a databank could save people from these types of humiliations and violations which would further ensure their security?
IF NO- so you don’t think that DNA evidence could eliminate certain suspects? You just agreed previously that investigations take up time and cause humiliation for innocent suspects.
4) would it now be safe to say that a National DNA databank would provide safety for the innocent, and punishment for the true criminal.
As we can now see, it seems that the only people who could possibly oppose this introduction would be criminals
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)