|
Post by TheDeuce on Sept 23, 2006 2:07:01 GMT -5
OK, the Human Rights Commission has ruled that the Pasternak twins not only have the right to play for the mens team but that they should get $3,500 each for the humiliation they've suffered. Any thoughts?
m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Sept 23, 2006 2:10:54 GMT -5
Manitoba Human Rights Commission rules in favour of Pasternak twins By ROCHELLE SQUIRES
Identical twins Amy and Jesse Pasternak won their human rights case against the Manitoba High School Athletics Association (MHSAA) and will be allowed to try out on a boys hockey team, an adjudicator ruled today.
The 17-year-old twins were also awarded $3,500 each in compensation for “loss of dignity.”
“I believe that the evidence demonstrates that the Pasternak girls did suffer significant distress and loss as a result of the MHSAA’s denying them an opportunity to play on their school’s men’s hockey team, and that an award of damages is warranted,” adjudicator Lynn Harrison wrote in her decision.
Harrison’s decision came two months after a human rights tribunal in June where the identical twin sisters argued for the right to play on the boys' hockey team at West Kildonan Collegiate.
They were denied an opportunity to play on the boys’ team because the school offered a girls’ hockey team, according to MHSAA rules.
Harrison ruled the MHSAA’s rule and decision are not justified on the basis that other alternatives were available to the twins.
The ruling will have implications in how gender-based hockey teams are organized but will not apply to other sports in high school.
Read more in tomorrow's Winnipeg Sun.
|
|
|
Post by vivianmb on Sept 23, 2006 12:12:00 GMT -5
well i guess there fair game for "the big hit".i hope they dont get hurt, cause you know every one's going to be running them.
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Sept 23, 2006 14:30:49 GMT -5
Waaaay too much publicity for those girls. Attention getters they seem. Why would they even want to play with guys anyway?
$3500? No way. What humiliation? If anything...they will benefit from all the attention. People who feel humiliated don't agree to a half dozen photo ops every 3 weeks.
It's like me saying that "Darren Ford for Mayor" sign was humiliating and then post it on the net for everyone to see.
No offense to them personally...I think they have every right to play....but to say they've been humiliated and then gain financially from the ordeal is over the top. Sorry...but I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Sept 23, 2006 15:51:48 GMT -5
Then they should have no special treatment and shouldn't mind changing with the BOYS, since we're not discriminating anymore!
|
|
|
Post by razorsedge on Sept 23, 2006 16:33:54 GMT -5
Did the girls have the option to play on a girls team? If so, than they have no right or reason to play on a boys team.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Sept 23, 2006 18:35:15 GMT -5
Did the girls have the option to play on a girls team? If so, than they have no right or reason to play on a boys team. Yep, there is a girls team at their school, but these two both said they were too good for it. m.
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Sept 23, 2006 19:16:31 GMT -5
Now I am even more angry
|
|
|
Post by KillerBrew on Sept 23, 2006 20:05:39 GMT -5
$3,500? For what? Really... *shakes head in disgust*
Unfortunate for them, those are the rules of high school hockey. But why make such a fuss about it. Instead of crying they should explore other options. Try out for the nearest A1-3 midget teams. Those leagues allow girls to play. A1 and maybe even A2, talent wise, are better leagues than the third tier division that their school is apart of. There's your "challenge" right there.
Edit: I don't know why I said it is unfortuante for them seeing that they were awarded the right to try out, deerrrrr. *slaps head* Well, time for my medicine...
|
|
|
Post by Drew on Sept 24, 2006 3:17:32 GMT -5
I HOPE they do not make the team.
|
|
|
Post by death128 on Sept 24, 2006 17:50:32 GMT -5
If they wanted to play for the high school hockey team they should have the option of trying out. Period.
They were not allowed this option because they were girls and that is discrimination punishable under the human rights act.
Give them a fair chance to showcase their abilities and there would be no issue here.
|
|
|
Post by renegade204 on Sept 24, 2006 22:16:19 GMT -5
first of all they DID have the option to play for thier girls team, also if it ment that much to them, they could have taken a class at Garden City to try for that team ... but they wouldnt have made it, not in a long shot. it isnt like they are THAT good, i use to play with them. Tomorrow im going to West K and demand to try out for thier girls team, it would be discrimination apperently if they dont let me .... who knew??? lol ... to bad Garden City isnt having a High School Hockey Team this year, i was kinda looking forward to play .... w.e, this makes for a better story
|
|
|
Post by Jari on Sept 24, 2006 22:31:57 GMT -5
They're probably going to get cut. that would be so funny. then theyd have no where to play cause they wont be welcomed on the girls team now.
|
|
|
Post by death128 on Sept 25, 2006 0:06:03 GMT -5
first of all they DID have the option to play for thier girls team, also if it ment that much to them, they could have taken a class at Garden City to try for that team ... but they wouldnt have made it, not in a long shot. it isnt like they are THAT good, i use to play with them. Tomorrow im going to West K and demand to try out for thier girls team, it would be discrimination apperently if they dont let me .... who knew??? lol ... to bad Garden City isnt having a High School Hockey Team this year, i was kinda looking forward to play .... w.e, this makes for a better story The 'option' of playing for the girl's team was forced upon them. Garden city isnt their school. The only question should have been are they good enough to get on their team? If they get cut, so be it... they have the option of trying out now... hopefully the coaches will not be discriminatory in their assessment of these girls... Hmmm.... discrimination? Gary Bettman and Winnipeg? It hurts...
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Sept 25, 2006 14:35:13 GMT -5
Well I have a comment for this... I have played on the boys team til I was 16... I was equally competitive and the guys didnt' care. We had fun and I got hit a lot because no one really knew I was a chick until I got hit...lol I put myself in that position and never did complain. When I was 17 I then went to the girls team in St. Laurent for 2 reasons.... 1 - I was getting to small to be on the boys team anymore 2 - The boys were getting bigger and stronger and I seemed to be getting a lot more injured. It was to the point where I almost broke my arm. It just got to be "unfair" ...
I was sad to get off the St. Laurent boys team but everyone said that it was best I did considering the size difference and the fact that they didn't want me to get hurt. The gals team won 2nd place in the provincials that year and I would have lost out on that awesome opportunity if I would have stayed on the boys... Should they play on the boys team .. Sure.. if they are good enough.... who and why stop them... but there is a reason that the men are seperated from the girls and that becomes evident around the ages of 16 and up....
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 26, 2006 9:41:45 GMT -5
OK, are there really that many people on here that are so upset about this? Why can girls not try out for the boys team? Did Manon Rheaume not play a game with Tampa Bay? Did Hayley Wickenheiser not spend part of a season playing semi-pro in Europe? Big deal if they took the spot of a guy...if they are better, than they at least deserve the opportunity to prove it. So they get cut, big deal...at least they were allowed to try out. The same goes for these Pasternak girls...give them the chance to try out and suck it up if they are good enough to make the team. And for those who think it is right then to allow boys to try out for the girls team...go back to cheerleading you morons! Just because Rheaume played in the NHL doesn't mean we'd allow Gretzky to try out for the Cdn women's team. Sounds like we have a lot of sexists on here...
|
|
|
Post by dannymcmanny on Sept 26, 2006 10:19:11 GMT -5
I think the issue might be deeper than this in a way. Are we now getting rid of gender boundaries, if so then that's fine...but. Now guys that aren't good enough to play on the boys team can now go play on the girls team, most of these guys will be bigger than the girls and will start hurting them on the ice. More girls don't want to play anymore, then there is less participation in women's sports. With this ruling we are saying that there is an A and a B team (guys and girls), sure some girls will make the A team, some will make the B team, but now guys will return to take over all sports and the women's movement to have the right to play in fact takes a step backwards. There is talk of this moving through all sports. Sure many women say this is great, good for them, but in the long run I think that it hurts the average woman that wants to play sports.
|
|
|
Post by AO8/EM71 on Sept 26, 2006 10:39:31 GMT -5
the main issue i have isnt with girls playing mens hockey. if they can play at that level then they should have every right to play there. however there are a few things that upset me about this case.
what message does this send to girls who are very talented hockey players? instead of trying to improve the girls program they jump ship. this can be compared to the case of Michelle Wie who is a talented golfer and could legitimately compete on the LPGA but prefers bottom feeding on the PGA.
basically it comes down to what kind of publicity you want: being a star and pioneer of womens hockey or not making an impact at the mens level.
the funny part is that after throwing the womens team under the bus the girls will not be accepted back on the team if cut from the mens squad.
|
|
|
Post by senner on Sept 26, 2006 11:19:45 GMT -5
Hayley Wickenheiser who argueably is the best woman hockey player this country(world?) has seen to date, went as far as anyone of her gender could. And, in the end, even she admitted she had just become a novelty. So, I get the whole equality issue, but in physical sports, it will never be equal.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 26, 2006 16:42:03 GMT -5
Why does everyone assume that weaker male players should have the right to play female hockey because of this ruling? It's like a 16 year old midget aged player playing in the WHL and then allowing a cut 19 year old to go play midget hockey...it just doesn't make sense! There are other hockey options for anyone who gets cut from the boys team...go play rec hockey! Same goes for if girls get cut from the girls team...do they have a fallback option? Are they going to be allowed to go play PeeWee hockey again?
|
|