They Call Us Crazy

When we say that human rights laws could be used to protect pedophiles. While it was not so used in this case I think there is some interesting food for thought in the excerpt below. The applicant is a teacher by the way.

"[38] The essence of this aspect of the claim of the applicant is that he was labelled as a pedophile by school administration, and that this is a disability under the Code. The applicant further states that in repeatedly raising these issues with him the respondents violated the Code. The applicant states that if the employer was concerned that the applicant was a pedophile they should have offered him counselling or sent him for an assessment.
[39] I do not accept the applicant’s analysis. The concerns of the respondent were legitimate and they raised them with the respondent in the appropriate way. The seriousness of the concern was clearly raised and the reasons for it articulated. Their concerns were reduced to writing. Moreover the respondents asked the applicant on at least one occasion if there were any underlying issues that they should be aware of, that might explain why the applicant appeared unable to modify his behaviour.
[40] There is no indication that the applicant is a pedophile and absolutely no suggestion that anyone involved thought that the applicant was a pedophile or that he was likely to engage, or ever had engaged, in any inappropriate sexual behaviour with any of the children with whom he had contact. The personal respondent was quite clear that he did not believe that the applicant was a pedophile or was involved in any inappropriate relationships with the children. He testified that if he had any such concerns he would have acted quite differently. He would, he stated, have called the children’s aid society and the police, and he would have removed the applicant from the school pending the investigation. There is no basis for concluding that the respondents perceived that the applicant was a person with pedophilia, whether or not that constitutes a disability within the meaning of the Code."

Whether or not it constitutes a disability? Surely it could not have been that hard to say it does not constitute a disability. I'm not saying the tribunal believes it is a disability but they are spending quite a bit of time discussing whether the respondents perceived him as being a pedophile. (language that relates to disability)

After all everything else, even drug addictions, is a disability, why not pedophilia?