Pot Calls Kettle Black

But They Might Have Gotten It Right Kinda Sorta

I have been waiting for a human rights decisions that I could point to and say: "There, they did something kinda sorta right, in a back door kinda way." So, conditionally, I am saying today that the Canadian HRC might have gotten one kinda sorta right maybe for the Air Canada Pilots - Fly Past 60 group of pilots who do not want to be grounded after they reach the company mandated retirement age of 60 for pilots. They just didn't need to do it at all.

I am saying conditionally until I read the entire Decision, which will come out in a month or two. I am interested in the details released at that time. However, if as I suspect this is based solely on a calendar birth date, then it can be termed a form of age discrimination that has existed all along in our society. It is not like the pilots didn't know when they hired on that they would have to retire at age 60. Not just one day, "Surprise, you're 60. You're outta here."

The Canadian HRC is calling this mandatory retirement age unconstitutional. Since so much of what the Canadian HRC does in their own practices is unconstitutional, that is really the pot calling the kettle black.

I guess we have to wait until the first 62 year old pilot crashes an Airbus, and the lawsuits go flying left and right to see how this really plays out. I hope that day never comes.

Here is a question I do not know the answer to: Are we, the fare paying public, as safe on Air Canada flights with a 62 year old pilot as we are with a 40 year old pilot? Frankly, I haven't flown an AC flight in so long, the answer is mute for me. We fly out of Detroit when we fly to the US, and fly Westjet from here in London for our Canada flights.

One follow up question: Does J Ly and her Canadian HRC care about the fare paying public or do she and they just care about fake human rights, like mandatory retirement ages?