What makes people discriminate against others

What is discrimination? Common reasons that people are discriminated against: their sex or gender if they have any kind of disability their race their age their sexual preferences.

Some examples of discrimination: someone saying hurtful things or attacking you repeatedly being made fun of being excluded or left out having a group of people gang up on you being made to do hurtful or inappropriate things being threatened finding yourself having to defend who you are and what you believe against stereotypes and untrue claims.

Discrimination is often linked with bullying People who negatively discriminate often behave in a way that is intended to disturb or upset the other person. Try to take action yourself Explain to the person involved that their behaviour offends you or makes you uncomfortable. Check out your legal rights Formal processes for handling issues of discrimination can be very different depending on where and when the discrimination occurs.

What can I do now? For example, it may take place in a direct way. It can happen when individuals or organizations specifically exclude people in rental housing, employment or services, withhold benefits that are available to others, or impose extra burdens that are not imposed on others, without a legitimate or bona fide reason.

This discrimination is often based on negative attitudes, stereotypes and bias about people with mental health or addiction disabilities. Discrimination may also happen indirectly.

It may be carried out through another person or organization. The organization or person that sets out discriminatory conditions, and the organization or person that carries out this discrimination, can both be named in a human rights claim and held responsible.

Discrimination is often subtle. It may be unlikely that discriminatory remarks will be made directly, or that someone will freely voice their stereotypical views as a rationale for their behaviour. Subtle forms of discrimination can usually only be detected after looking at all of the circumstances to determine if a pattern of behaviour exists. Individual acts themselves may be ambiguous or explained away, but when viewed as part of a larger picture, may lead to an inference that discrimination based on a Code ground was a factor in the treatment a person received.

An inexplicable departure from usual practices may establish a claim of discrimination. The co-op also sought further details of her medical condition which she refused to provide, and this also formed the basis for the eviction. The Court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship before evicting.

Many laws, requirements or standards are put in place without considering the unique needs or circumstances of people with psychosocial disabilities. Organizations have a responsibility to understand where these may have a discriminatory effect, and to remove this effect where it occurs. Mental health profiling is different from criminal profiling. Criminal profiling relies on actual behaviour or on information about suspected criminal activity by someone who meets the description of a specific individual.

There is a wealth of jurisprudence establishing the phenomenon of racial profiling. People with perceived or known mental health or addiction issues are commonly stereotyped as a risk to public security and safety even when there may be little objective evidence to support this perception. In the case of racial profiling, courts have accepted the widespread existence of racism. For example, in the case of anti-Black racism, they have accepted that pervasive negative societal views about Black men may wrongly connect Black men and acts of violence.

This may lead to behaviour being unconsciously influenced by stereotypes, and overreactions to conduct where Black people are perceived as threatening, even where there is no real risk.

Because of this, they may be perceived to be a risk to public security and responded to in a disproportionate way. Even if there is some evidence of risk or wrongdoing, organizations are expected to respond in a way that is proportionate to the situation. There will rarely be direct evidence of profiling and, therefore, it must be proven by inference drawn from circumstantial evidence. These factors may be relevant when considering whether profiling based on mental health was a reason for the alleged treatment:.

People who believe they are being profiled can be expected to find the experience upsetting and might well react in an angry and verbally aggressive way.

Police must also believe that the person has a mental disorder that will result in serious bodily harm to others, or that the disorder will cause serious bodily harm or physical impairment to themselves. The HRTO has found that it is not discriminatory to respond to the actual behaviour of people with mental health disabilities that causes risk.

Intersections of different Code grounds can contribute to people being perceived as a risk to public safety. For example, people with mental health issues who are Aboriginal or from racialized communities may be more likely to be profiled as a security risk than other people. Example: A Tribunal ruled that the owner of a shopping mall and the security company it employed engaged in a pattern of discriminatory treatment of Aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

The Tribunal examined the "orders" that were used by the mall to direct the security officers on which people to watch for, and found that a number of elements discriminated against and stereotyped economically disadvantaged people. If organizations scrutinize people with known or perceived psychosocial disabilities based on stereotypes and assumptions, rather than actual behaviour, this may be a violation of the Code.

Harassment is prohibited under the Code in employment and housing. The issue is whether these events have work-related consequences for the person being harassed. In housing, people with psychosocial disabilities have the right to be free from harassment in accommodation by the landlord or an agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building, because of disability and other Code grounds.

Example: A tenant, who identified as having learning disabilities and depression, decided to move from her apartment to a subsidized housing unit. The landlord was aware that she had a mental health issue. People also have the right to be free from harassment in services, in making contracts, and in membership in unions, trade or vocational associations.

Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the Code guarantee the right to equal treatment in these social areas, without discrimination based on disability, among other Code grounds.

Harassment based on disability, as a form of discrimination, is therefore prohibited in these areas. It should be understood that some types of comments or behaviour are unwelcome based on the response of the person subjected to the behaviour, even when the person does not explicitly object. Some conduct or comments relating to a Code -protected ground such as disability may not, on their face, be offensive. However, they may still be "unwelcome" from the perspective of a particular person.

If similar behaviour is repeated despite indications from the person that it is unwelcome, there may be a violation of the Code. Harassment could include:. Harassment based on Code grounds is occurring increasingly through cyber-technology, including cell phone text messaging, social networking sites, blogs and email. Harassment may take different forms depending on whether the affected person identifies with more than one Code ground. Example: The HRTO found that an employer discriminated against an employee with bi-polar disorder when it made no efforts to respond to or investigate his concerns about harassment.

The employee reported a number of incidents of inappropriate comment and conduct by his co-workers related to his disability and perceived sexual orientation. Nothing was done about the harassment and bullying. We are all vulnerable to feelings of inferiority, insecurity and inadequacy. Satan and the fallen world in which we live make sure of that. Just let someone point out an unflattering physical feature, or incompetence, or deficiency, and the flush of embarrassment or anger that follows is a sure-fire sign of our vulnerability to insecurities.

In situations such as these, we usually either retreat or attack, and discrimination is a tool we may use to attack. Last week, we looked at reasons why we should not discriminate. We may have grown up in a culture of discrimination. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. We may find some who are different from us genuinely off-putting, and out of a sense of superiority, we look down on them. Again, this goes way beyond race. And because there is a genuine aversion, we indulge our aversion and discriminate against others.

We just need to see a representative sample to conclude that it is wrong, and we need to forsake it. Growing up, I was socially ambidextrous.