Strip Clubs

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

When a career choice is chosen around a disability - it's still a disability. When it affects other aspects of someone's life and not work, it's still a disability. I question if you understand what a disability is.

I think not. I question whether you have a full understanding of what disability is. It is not simply a permanent medical impairment. In the employment context is compared next to the normative expectations of the job. If someone has a medical condition that requires a special diet and meds it is not a disability unless eating the food or taking the meds had to be accommodated at certain times, like extra breaks - but if it only impedes what restaurants somebody can eat at it would not stand up in a human rights case involving employment - unless maybe they were excluded from staff lunch outings.

 

[ChemGal]

@Kimmio there can also be invisible disabilities that affect work (although something can be a disability without affecting a job). Do you not recognize these types of disabilities when it comes to strippers?

 

[ChemGal]

I think not. I question whether you have a full understanding of what disability is. It is not simply a permanent medical impairment.

You seem to be the only simplifying it, not me.

 

[ChemGal]

And now @Kimmio has edited her posts, so mine are out of context.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Kimmio there can also be invisible disabilities that affect work (although something can be a disability without affecting a job). Do you not recognize these types of disabilities when it comes to strippers?

Yes, I do - like Crohns or Diabetes etc. and they deserve accommodation. They do affect the job. If they are so well controlled that a person needn't disclose it is not a disability. It is not a disability until an employer has some indication or perception that there is one. However, a person with a visible disability has no choice to keep it to themselves. They can only choose not to explain it. See the difference and why it's important?

 

[ChemGal]

I'm done with this thread. It's too difficult when posts are edited multiple times.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ChemGal care to read the post above and respond. You made a gross assumption - I went back and responded. I'd appreciate it if you would read the last post and respond to whether or not you understand the barriers of visible vs invisible disability in the employment context and disclosing a disability.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ChemGal if a person has a medical impairment and the employer does not know, or perceive that they have one, and did not ought to reasonably suspect it -the cannot file a human rights complaint if they were fired for something that was impacted by it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So, in the context of employment law it would not count as a disability.

 

[Jaebius]

Well - I and people like me have an "invisible disability" that can really affect a job. Imagine the stripper starts dancing and has a seizure right then and there.

 

[Delightful Life]

Well - I and people like me have an "invisible disability" that can really affect a job. Imagine the stripper starts dancing and has a seizure right then and there.

BREAKDANCING!!!

i wonder if there's an exotic dancer with Tourette?

here's an employer fulfilling a need with real people & real situations; they'll come to you

even nonhumans are getting in on it; go, Coco, despite your handicap! shake what your momma gave ya

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Well - I and people like me have an "invisible disability" that can really affect a job. Imagine the stripper starts dancing and has a seizure right then and there.

At that point the employer becomes aware. At that point the employee would have grounds to make a claim if the employer tried to fire them - there would possibly be questions on the employer side of safety and liability but the along with the concept of dignity, in the law, is the concept that a person with a disability has the right to assume risk. It would be up to the court process to look af the details presented around accommodations made and risks assumed.

If they are late for work all the time because they have seizures before work and they make up an excuse for it and get fired, the employer is not at fault for not knowing - it probably wouldn't stand up in a human rights case unless the employer could reasonably suspect or was aware that there was some health issue causing the lateness . That is up to the employee to choose to disclose or not. They may not find that it's worth because of biases, or they may. It can be tough for people with invisible disabilities to decide. But if they have no barriers in the context of a particular job, no disadvantages, then they have no disability in that employment context.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

A person can have a medical impairment, temporary or permanent, without having a disability - but they can't have a disability without having a medical impairment.

It's screwy because there is certain legislation whereby a person gets given disability status - they get slapped with a label that defines them at all times according to the legislation because they have a medical impairment - but they have to to get whatever assistance they need - it isn't designed to take into account different situations present different barriers for the same medical condition. And other legislation - human rights legislation - that takes into account the barriers that normative expectations in society places that impedes their full inclusion in society in various different ways but not in all ways. It can present a real identity crisis in an individual sometimes! The human rights model - is the right one.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

And some legislation does not take into account external environment, only personal impairment.

Employment law has improved over the years at this.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ChemGal just thought of something to illustrate my point.

Wearing glasses in our culture is not considered a disability in most areas of life - a person can get contacts or laser surgery if it is appropriate for their eyes. It's not a disability because it is commonplace, and acceptable - even athletes wear prescription goggles, etc. Glasses can even be considered attractive, but this was not always the case ("4 eyes", "coke bottles"). Nobody was born with glasses. If someone who uses a heavy prescription lost their glasses and couldn't pay for new ones they wouldn't be able to work. They might be legally blind - a disability. With glasses - not a disability. The majority of people who wear glasses everyday would not consider themselves people with disabilities. That particular attitudinal barrier has been pretty well eliminated.

Not hiring a someone with a physical disability who can do the job with an assistive device is like not hiring somebody who wears glasses because they don't find glasses attractive.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

As soon as you remove the barriers that disadvantage someone - whether those are visible or invisible (attitudes are invisible barriers) their impairment ceases to be a disability.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

(thank you to my parents for teaching me the glasses analogy when I was very young and pointing out that they wear glasses. That analogy helped me see things better on many occassions. I am fortunate that they understood it)

We need to teach the same about other disabilities until other attitudes disappear too.

 

[crazyheart]

At city council last night in Regina, strip clubs were voted down.

They had to open another room for folk to sit.

Concerns were :
safety of the strippers
and women in general(prostitution, degradation, exploitation,
abuse, human trafficking) to increased crime(gangs and drugs
to damage to Regina's moral fibre and the community's well being.

Background of 24 delegations who spoke:

church goers, mother of murdered prostitute, retired Saskatoon policeman.

a Roughrider #91,gymnastics club that were looking to relocate near the club.

a young married woman who personally feels threatened.

It was interesting that one of the councillors who votes for the club was the head

on Carmichael Outreach ministry that use to belong to UCCAN

 

[Carolla]

Thanks for the update crazyheart.

 

[ChemGal]

At city council last night in Regina, strip clubs were voted down.

They had to open another room for folk to sit.

Concerns were :
safety of the strippers
and women in general(prostitution, degradation, exploitation,
abuse, human trafficking) to increased crime(gangs and drugs
to damage to Regina's moral fibre and the community's well being.

Background of 24 delegations who spoke:

church goers, mother of murdered prostitute, retired Saskatoon policeman.

a Roughrider #91,gymnastics club that were looking to relocate near the club.

a young married woman who personally feels threatened.

It was interesting that one of the councillors who votes for the club was the head

on Carmichael Outreach ministry that use to belong to UCCAN

Does this just mean within the city though? From what I recall, the change in the law was for the province, right?
Is this a new law in Regina than, or did just not approve the zoning/business licence/etc?