BigKiwi vs Les Mills

[Draft]

You recon a guy can join contours? As they are a private club they can turn away anybody they want the trick is not to do it on sex, then human rights commission wont get involved. They just wouldnt let you join and they dont need to give a reason.

This is like any store/private place the legal occupier can turn anybody away and they dont need to give a reason.

Just because they ask a man to leave a store doesnt mean the HRC will get involved. Would be a different story if they said you have to leave because your a man or had signage up stating what sex or races etc could enter.

Yea, I agree. Its been a while since I looked at anything that involved the HRA so I've just assumed it applies to a gym/health club etc. It might not but for some reason I get the feeling it does.

Even if they don't give reasons for rejecting you I'd say that there would be a fair presumption that the grounds were sex/gender. They would have to do a pretty goo job of substantiating some grounds other that that IMO. But hey, like I said, I'm not a human rights lawyer.

[Draft]

all very interesting points you def can't descriminate on sex even if it is a private club you will get your ass handed to you. Legally a guy could def join contours

But leaglly the club doesnt have to accept your custom.

One thing that gets me is the NZ Maori Rugby team! How is this not a breach of human rights Id love to see the NZ caucasian Rugby team there would be all kind of protests!

I'm pretty sure there is an exception for equal opportunity or advancing previously disadvantaged persons. I think you could say that the Maori rugby team fits that without too much twisting.

[jimjim83]

The burden of evidance is on the prosecution not the defendant, the health club wouldnt need to prove anything, the prosection would have to prove that it was descrimination by gender, presumption isnt sufficent. As they say presumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.

[jimjim83]

all very interesting points you def can't descriminate on sex even if it is a private club you will get your ass handed to you. Legally a guy could def join contours

But leaglly the club doesnt have to accept your custom.

One thing that gets me is the NZ Maori Rugby team! How is this not a breach of human rights Id love to see the NZ caucasian Rugby team there would be all kind of protests!

I'm pretty sure there is an exception for equal opportunity or advancing previously disadvantaged persons. I think you could say that the Maori rugby team fits that without too much twisting.

At what point do they stop being disadvanaged people or will thay always be seen as disadvantaged due to once being disadvantaged?

[Draft]

A complaint to the HRC wouldn't be subject to the same evidence standards as judicial proceedings. It's more of an inquisitorial approach than an adversarial approach.

If it did ever get to trial though you would think that the discovery process would turn up all the documents the plaintiff would need to support their claim.

[Draft]

At what point do they stop being disadvanaged people or will thay always be seen as disadvantaged due to once being disadvantaged?

Measures to ensure equality

(1) Anything done or omitted which would otherwise constitute a breach of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall not constitute such a breach if—

(a) It is done or omitted in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons, being in each case persons against whom discrimination is unlawful by virtue of this Part of this Act; and

(b) Those persons or groups need or may reasonably be supposed to need assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community.

So I guess it ends once the unjustified disadvantage ends which is a matter of scope really - you could are that Maori aren't disadvantage on the rugby field but maybe more so in society generally. I'm not sure to be honest. I don't think anyone has tried to argue that Maori no longer need support in the nature of 'equal opportunity.'

[Beef]

all very interesting points you def can't descriminate on sex even if it is a private club you will get your ass handed to you. Legally a guy could def join contours

But leaglly the club doesnt have to accept your custom.

One thing that gets me is the NZ Maori Rugby team! How is this not a breach of human rights Id love to see the NZ caucasian Rugby team there would be all kind of protests!

it's not even a maori team though, you could be like 1/64th maori and still play for NZ maori.

[jimjim83]

A complaint to the HRC wouldn't be subject to the same evidence standards as judicial proceedings. As more of an inquisitorial approach than and adversarial approach.

If it did ever get to trial though you would think that the discovery process would turn up all the documents the plaintiff would need to support their claim.

The same standards of evidence apply its not a coronial hearing where hearsy evidence is allowed its a prosecution.

The prosecution would have to have solid evidence. just being turned away isnt evidence.

[jimjim83]

At what point do they stop being disadvanaged people or will thay always be seen as disadvantaged due to once being disadvantaged?

Measures to ensure equality

(1) Anything done or omitted which would otherwise constitute a breach of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall not constitute such a breach if—

(a) It is done or omitted in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons, being in each case persons against whom discrimination is unlawful by virtue of this Part of this Act; and

(b) Those persons or groups need or may reasonably be supposed to need assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community.

So I guess it ends once the unjustified disadvantage ends which is a matter of scope really - you could are that Maori aren't disadvantage on the rugby field but maybe more so in society generally. I'm not sure to be honest. I don't think anyone has tried to argue that Maori no longer need support in the nature of 'equal opportunity.'

Good food for thought :grin:

[Chillicat]

HRC doesn't prosecute. The process is mediation, and if a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Act isn't resolved via that process then the complainant has the option approach the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to seek representation at the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and that's when it becomes a legal process.

Clubs are exempt under the Human Rights Act. There's something in Section 44 of the Act. It's a bit legalistic (being an Act and all), but essentially the HRC can't generally become involved if it's a club that is the subject of the complaint.

Re Maori rugby, the Commission included the following in their submission on the Wanganui/Whanganui spelling issue:

3.5 In respect of the minority complaints, evidence of disadvantage would need to be provided to meet the legal test of discrimination regarding the alleged preferential treatment of Māori in this instance. As the Commission has noted in other complaints regarding the perceived special treatment of Māori – for example, those relating to the New Zealand Māori Rugby team – these instances are not considered unlawful racial discrimination under the provisions of the Act. This is due to the fact that they represent a means of affirming and strengthening a particular cultural identity that is unique to New Zealand, not diminishing or subjugating another.

Source:

http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/fi ... i_0809.doc

(sorry, I'm rubbish at doing those flash linky things :roll: )

[jimjim83]

HRC doesn't prosecute. The process is mediation, and if a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Act isn't resolved via that process then the complainant has the option approach the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to seek representation at the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and that's when it becomes a legal process.

Clubs are exempt under the Human Rights Act. There's something in Section 44 of the Act. It's a bit legalistic (being an Act and all), but essentially the HRC can't generally become involved if it's a club that is the subject of the complaint.

Re Maori rugby, the Commission included the following in their submission on the Wanganui/Whanganui spelling issue:

3.5 In respect of the minority complaints, evidence of disadvantage would need to be provided to meet the legal test of discrimination regarding the alleged preferential treatment of Māori in this instance. As the Commission has noted in other complaints regarding the perceived special treatment of Māori – for example, those relating to the New Zealand Māori Rugby team – these instances are not considered unlawful racial discrimination under the provisions of the Act. This is due to the fact that they represent a means of affirming and strengthening a particular cultural identity that is unique to New Zealand, not diminishing or subjugating another.

Source:

http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/fi ... i_0809.doc

(sorry, I'm rubbish at doing those flash linky things :roll: )

cheers for that.

[Gym rat]

HRC doesn't prosecute. The process is mediation, and if a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Act isn't resolved via that process then the complainant has the option approach the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to seek representation at the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and that's when it becomes a legal process.

Clubs are exempt under the Human Rights Act. There's something in Section 44 of the Act. It's a bit legalistic (being an Act and all), but essentially the HRC can't generally become involved if it's a club that is the subject of the complaint.

Re Maori rugby, the Commission included the following in their submission on the Wanganui/Whanganui spelling issue:

3.5 In respect of the minority complaints, evidence of disadvantage would need to be provided to meet the legal test of discrimination regarding the alleged preferential treatment of Māori in this instance. As the Commission has noted in other complaints regarding the perceived special treatment of Māori – for example, those relating to the New Zealand Māori Rugby team – these instances are not considered unlawful racial discrimination under the provisions of the Act. This is due to the fact that they represent a means of affirming and strengthening a particular cultural identity that is unique to New Zealand, not diminishing or subjugating another.

Source:

http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/fi ... i_0809.doc

(sorry, I'm rubbish at doing those flash linky things :roll: )

Thanks for that

[Draft]

HRC doesn't prosecute. The process is mediation, and if a complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Act isn't resolved via that process then the complainant has the option approach the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to seek representation at the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and that's when it becomes a legal process.

Clubs are exempt under the Human Rights Act. There's something in Section 44 of the Act. It's a bit legalistic (being an Act and all), but essentially the HRC can't generally become involved if it's a club that is the subject of the complaint.

Re Maori rugby, the Commission included the following in their submission on the Wanganui/Whanganui spelling issue:

3.5 In respect of the minority complaints, evidence of disadvantage would need to be provided to meet the legal test of discrimination regarding the alleged preferential treatment of Māori in this instance. As the Commission has noted in other complaints regarding the perceived special treatment of Māori – for example, those relating to the New Zealand Māori Rugby team – these instances are not considered unlawful racial discrimination under the provisions of the Act. This is due to the fact that they represent a means of affirming and strengthening a particular cultural identity that is unique to New Zealand, not diminishing or subjugating another.

Source:

http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms/fi ... i_0809.doc

(sorry, I'm rubbish at doing those flash linky things :roll: )

Cheers for that Chillicat. I'm way outta my depth in Human Rights law. Who needs them anyway?

Process basically sounds the same as the current employment disputes process.

[Chillicat]

Process basically sounds the same as the current employment disputes process.

Yes - people with employment discrimination issues have the option of taking their complaint to the HRC or to Employment Relations, but the process is pretty much the same.

[jimjim83]

Process basically sounds the same as the current employment disputes process.

Yes - people with employment discrimination issues have the option of taking their complaint to the HRC or to Employment Relations, but the process is pretty much the same.

I imagine it would take fair bit for them to get involved with complaints.

[Chillicat]

Process basically sounds the same as the current employment disputes process.

Yes - people with employment discrimination issues have the option of taking their complaint to the HRC or to Employment Relations, but the process is pretty much the same.

I imagine it would take fair bit for them to get involved with complaints.

Who - the HRC? If the complaint is on a prohibited ground under the Act, and in one of the areas laid out under the Act (including employment), then the HRC is able to become involved. It's not always straightforward though, and a person needs to have a wee bit more than just a suspicion that the reason they are being treated differently is because of one of the prohibited grounds. It's very much case by case though.

[nate225]

Yes - people with employment discrimination issues have the option of taking their complaint to the HRC or to Employment Relations, but the process is pretty much the same.

I imagine it would take fair bit for them to get involved with complaints.

Who - the HRC? If the complaint is on a prohibited ground under the Act, and in one of the areas laid out under the Act (including employment), then the HRC is able to become involved. It's not always straightforward though, and a person needs to have a wee bit more than just a suspicion that the reason they are being treated differently is because of one of the prohibited grounds. It's very much case by case though.

And lets be realistic, most choose to ta PG pathway to ERA rather than claim discrimation via the HRC.

There seems to be more of a lure to take the PG pathway for some reason.... I'm sure its not just that s123c or other monetary awards seem too easy at the ERA!!! :grin:

ANYWAY.... back to topic.

Justin's likely to be flogging a dead horse on this one. Hopefully his lawyer gives him appropriate advice & he can get on with being the freakiest bodybuilder in the country again! :nod:

[jimjim83]

I imagine it would take fair bit for them to get involved with complaints.

Who - the HRC? If the complaint is on a prohibited ground under the Act, and in one of the areas laid out under the Act (including employment), then the HRC is able to become involved. It's not always straightforward though, and a person needs to have a wee bit more than just a suspicion that the reason they are being treated differently is because of one of the prohibited grounds. It's very much case by case though.

And lets be realistic, most choose to ta PG pathway to ERA rather than claim discrimation via the HRC.

There seems to be more of a lure to take the PG pathway for some reason.... I'm sure its not just that s123c or other monetary awards seem too easy at the ERA!!! :grin:

ANYWAY.... back to topic.

Justin's likely to be flogging a dead horse on this one. Hopefully his lawyer gives him appropriate advice & he can get on with being the freakiest bodybuilder in the country again! :nod:

I heard the only reason Justin was so annoyed about being asked to leave is because he now cant get his daily dose of pump and step classes!! :pfft:

[Riccardo]

don't forget Zumba

[Gasp]

At least I wont need the yellow pages when I next need a lawyer. Theres dozens of bush lawyers here on NZBB :pfft: :pfft:

[nate225]

At least I wont need the yellow pages when I next need a lawyer. Theres dozens of bush lawyers here on NZBB :pfft: :pfft:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz .......everyones an expert now gasp! :grin:

[Chillicat]

And one of us might just happen to work at the HRC :wink:

[jimjim83]

At least I wont need the yellow pages when I next need a lawyer. Theres dozens of bush lawyers here on NZBB :pfft: :pfft:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz .......everyones an expert now gasp! :grin:

Considering the standard of the vast majority of lawyers of there you would probably get better advice on here. :shock:

[BIGKIWI]

I just bought a pink spandex unitard and was ready for my classes I am so diappointed

[jimjim83]

I just bought a pink spandex unitard and was ready for my classes I am so diappointed

You wont just have to worry about being banned from Les Mills, Ill be talking to John Key to have you removed from the country if you put it on!! :grin: