RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS ERODING

THE Canadian Human Rights Council announced Friday they had beaten the
Toronto Dominion in a case they took to the federal court of Canada.

What had those nasty bankers tried to do this time which aroused the ire of
the human rights types? Gouge an old lady? Foreclose on a widow?

Nope. They instituted a policy of drug testing to ensure their employees
who have access to large amounts of your money aren't junkies.

With the potency of heroin reaching levels of 80% and 90% purity and the
addiction rates increasing at frightening levels, the bank felt it was
incumbent to ensure they were protected from the potential ravages of an
addict with a habit far exceeding his or her available salary.

Seems reasonable enough on the surface. But the CHRC decided this was an
affront to all Canadians and a clear violation of the Canada Human Rights
Act. They argued the policy infringed on the rights of addicts because
junkies weren't responsible. According to the CHRC, heroin addicts are
"disabled."

The federal court agreed in a majority decision.

The act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and defines
disability to include those with a previous or existing dependence on a drug.

"A finding of trace amount of drugs in one's system does not mean that the
employee is unproductive or about to engage in a work-related crime,"
Justice J.A. McDonald wrote for the majority.

He ruled that the test had the potential to discriminate against employees
and was not sufficiently related to performance on the job.

John Hucker, secretary-general of the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
responsible for pursuing the case through the courts, was pleased with the
decision.

"There is little evidence that drugs are a problem in the banking sector,"
said Hucker.

This is getting a bit thick.

The "loony left" and social activists have been battling the conservative
right over the issue of state-sponsored heroin provision to addicts. That
debate rages on.

Privately run companies trying to protect themselves from the crime related
to drugs have been using drug testing for some time now. Bear in mind that
virtually every study done on crime and criminology attributes a
significant portion of criminal activity to drugs and the pursuit of
sufficient money to supply a burgeoning habit.

Now, despite the ravages addicts unleashed on society, the second highest
court in the land has said they're "disabled."

What's next? Pensions for bank robbers? Retirement homes for car thieves?

Isn't anyone responsible for their own actions anymore?

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski