Still Rape Relief did not give up. They went back to the B.C. Supreme Court, this time to argue that the human rights tribunal had committed an 'error of jurisdiction' in deciding in favour of Nixon. They argued, again, that they are exempt from the human rights code; that the onus of proof is higher in human rights cases; and they argued that the tribunal made a mistake in not accepting that they had a good reason for insisting that women working at Rape Relief have been treated as girls/women all their lives.
Nixon reiterated the arguments she made before the human rights tribunal, and pointed out what terrible consequences there would be for other equality-seeking groups if Rape Relief's arguments were to prevail. If Rape Relief were successful it would be harder for anyone to succeed with a human rights complaint. And she pointed out that women's groups -- or any groups-- were free to limit their membership in any way they like, even if the limitations are completely discriminatory. It is only when the group provides a service, or offers employment, that a group is required not to discriminate.
The BCSC decision came down on December 20. We lost. The judge decided that the BC Human Rights Tribunal does not understand the law of discrimination; held that a birth certificate marked "F" is not proof of one’s gender; and that Kimberly did not suffer any harm to her dignity – because a reasonable person would know that it would never be right for a transsexual to work in a women's organization as a peer counselor.
The above documents are published in Adobe® Acrobat PDF format to allow for viewing across different computer platforms: Windows PC, MAC, Linux.
To view the documents you need to download and install Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe.
