Originally published 10/25/2023
Contributed by Thamina Jaferi

As Islamic History Month comes to a close, I have been reflecting a lot on the current state of the world and the mass death, pain and suffering we are witnessing on a global scale, especially in the Middle East. Throughout history, colonialism, nationalism, patriotism, ethno-centrism, racism, classism, war, territorial disputes, politics and belief/value systems have been the cause for different groups of people to become polarized. 

When we live within our own “bubbles” of influence and only listen to voices of those who look and sound like us, it’s frighteningly easy to become cut off from those who are different than we are. When there is no ability to see a middle ground or common interests, or the humanity of others, the dangers of violence and civil unrest become more prevalent.

The alarming rise of hate incidents indicative of racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and other forms of discrimination around the world and here in Canada is just one of the many nefarious byproducts of this polarization. The multicultural fabric, security and peace of Canada and many other countries is at risk as a result of allowing hatred to sow the seeds of division amongst communities who otherwise live harmoniously with each other. 
​

Originally published 8/9/2018

When it comes to buying real estate, they say the three most important things are location, location, location. When considering matters of workplace discrimination and harassment, the three most important things are context, context, context.

Harassment is defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code as “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.” This definition makes it clear that the act itself needs to be considered in context, because it is not just the behaviour (a course of vexatious comment or conduct) but the context—that is, whether it is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome—that must be considered.

Yes, sometimes there are comments or behaviours that clearly would be deemed to be harassment or inappropriate for the workplace.

For most comment or behaviours, employees, managers, and those investigating complaints must consider the context.

Originally published 9/24/2022

My sister has worked for a municipal government in the Greater Toronto Area for over 20 years. During that time, she has developed a serious citrus allergy. This allergy causes a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis. For my sister, the allergy is life threatening and requires immediate medical treatment.

​Because allergies and scent sensitivities are considered a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers have a duty to accommodate my sister, short of undue hardship.

My sister provided her employer with the necessary medical documentation so that they would understand the seriousness of her allergy and be able to accommodate her. In response, her employer notified others on her floor about the allergy and asked them not to bring anything into the building containing citrus.

In the same building where my sister works, there is an employee with an allergy to bananas. To accommodate this employee, signs are posted throughout the building reminding employees and visitors alike not to bring bananas into the building. This is typically the minimum that an employer would do to protect employees with scent sensitivities or allergies.

​So, while the employer posted signs on each floor reminding people not to bring bananas into the building, the organization would not post signs reminding people not to bring citrus to work—not even signs on the floor where my sister works.​
​

Originally published 4/11/2021

Much of my work involves conducting Equity Audits. That is, I review employment policies and practices through an equity lens and make recommendations for change. One component of an Equity Audit is a review of an organization’s hiring and selection policies and practices. The goal is to remove barriers to the hiring of candidates from diverse backgrounds, communities, and identities so that they can be fairly assessed based on their job-related skills and abilities. The term used in human resources circles is “bias-free hiring.”

​​Yes, bias-free hiring is a misnomer because it is impossible for any human being, no matter how self-aware or open minded, to be free from bias. Bias is automatically introduced once people become involved in the process. However, there are ways to structure the hiring process to minimize the impact of bias and to support candidates to do their best in the interview.

Originally published 7/28/20

The killing of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement have sparked protests around the world and made the term “systemic racism” go mainstream. From reporters at major news outlets to the leaders of large corporations and non-profits, everyone is making proclamations against system racism and vowing to eradicate it.
 
Yet, while many in high-profile positions claim to know what systemic racism is, they fail to understand that the solutions, too, must be systemic. Being nicer to each other does not change the policies and practices that keep Black people from being hired. Hiring more racialized police officers does not change policing practices that target Black and Indigenous people. Being more inclusive at the leadership table also won’t automatically change policies that fail to test for COVID-19 in the hardest-hit parts of the city.

Originally published 7/31/2023

​Just as it has in the United States, the concept of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) has become a political target in Canada.
​
Over the past few years, we’ve seen the rise of the “anti-wokeism” campaign in an effort to undermine the workplace EDI efforts undertaken by many organizations across the country. These efforts recently culminated in the right-wing’s use of the suicide of a school principal to bully and target an EDI consultant.