1.Grounds based approach to discrimination
•What asks something a ground?
•Do the grounds dominate different kinds of discrimination?
•Advantages of a grounds based approach
2. Iyre's discussion:
•2 problems with any list of grounds
•2 problems with requiring claimants having to stuff their claim into a single
1.Grounds based approach to discrimination:
2.There are many ways in which countries can draft an anti-discrimination
oCan have a law saying: cannot discrimination, do not say how or
oThese countries leave it to the courts to decide what is
discrimination and what isn't
oWhat tends to happen is that there is a highly contextualized
•Will depend on the context of the discrimination
•These countries don't take a grounds based approach
3.List of prohibited ground like race sex age religion, ethnic origin, disability
are examples of ground
4.Thing snot on the list are poverty and physical appearance
5.In Canada, claimant has to show that they have been differentiated based
on one of these grounds on the list or something that a court can deem is
similar enough to the ones on the list (for example sexual orientation is
6.What makes something a ground?
oWhat all features on list have the same is immutability
•You can't easily change them at your own will
Problem with this: there are things that are immutable
like physical appearance, but isn't a ground
•Can change your religion
oSo not immutability, but constructive immutability
•So something you can change but only at great cost
oWhy might it matter that all these on the list have to be difficult to
change unless at great cost?
•Arbitrary in the sense that its an arbitrary feature of them
oWhy its wrong to discriminate based on sex, age , religion