Watch your
politics, please, we’re bankers

>> Gay Games opponent charges discrimination
as Royal refuses his business

by CHRIS BARRY

When Daniel Cormier went to open a business account at his branch of the Royal Bank in Montreal North last year, he had no idea that the bank-fine, noble, upstanding institution that it is-was intending on scrutinizing his political/religious beliefs before agreeing to do business with him. But when he received a call a few days later from the bank’s commercial accounts manager informing him that his application had been denied, it was made perfectly clear that their decision had been made based solely upon his organization’s stated purpose. That purpose: to oppose the promotion of homosexuality, or, more precisely, Montreal’s hosting of the 2006 Gay Games.

To Cormier, leader of the always fashionable Wisdom Party of Quebec, this was clearly a case of discrimination. His organization, the No Committee 2006, championed and supported by equally fashionable organizations like Real Women of Canada and the Christian Heritage Party, may be actively promoting “Christian” values that are inconsistent with those of the greater population, but they are certainly not an illegal organization. Nor are they, at least as far as Cormier is concerned, engaged in anything that could be construed as the promotion of hatred. The question Cormier-and civil libertarians-are asking, then, is, who is the Royal Bank to decide what is politically acceptable or not?

“In my entire life I’ve never heard of a bank refusing to open an account based on political grounds,” says Cormier. “They say that opening an account with us is to endorse our position. But we might want to question what the real motivation of the bank is. There’s a lot of money involved with the Gay Games, you know.”

After his application was rejected, Cormier, who insists he is not a homophobe and actually “loves gays” although “there is absolutely no way I will ever have sex with those people,” promptly filed a grievance with the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC). According to Cormier, they acknowledged that he had a legitimate gripe with the bank. He was also informed, however, that since banks fall under federal jurisdiction, there wasn’t a whole lot the QHRC could do for him, and as such, he and the No Committee would have to take their case up with the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Which they did, and last month the No Committee was curtly informed that the CHRC would not offer them any assistance in the matter. Cormier, not surprisingly, is convinced the Commission, like the Royal Bank, is denying him their services because of his organization’s political agenda.

Human rights for some
“The CHRC are supposed to protect minority opinion against prejudice,” says Cormier. “They’re the people who are supposed to be fighting against prejudice and discrimination, but in refusing our case, they are practicing discrimination themselves. I think they know we have a strong case against the Royal Bank and don’t want to take it on because they’re afraid they’re going to win. But it’s not like we want to kill anybody. We just want to express our opinion-that we don’t agree with the promotion of a lifestyle that we feel shouldn’t be promoted in society. But you must understand, I don’t discriminate against homosexuals, I genuinely love them. We would never want to prevent them from opening a bank account.”
CHRC director Michel Bibeau claims that the CHRC are unable to assist Cormier’s group because discrimination based on political conviction is not specifically recognized under the Canadian Human Rights Act-as it is under Quebec law.

“As it stands, we don’t see any link between the Canadian Human Rights Act and the grounds of their complaint,” says Bibeau. “If they were a religious group who were refused an account based upon those grounds, then they would be protected under the Act. But right now they fall into a sort of grey area.”
Bibeau also acknowledges that while ethically the bank may be discriminating against the No Committee, they are not breaking any laws by refusing to service them-for now. “It’s difficult for us to approach the bank accusing them of violating the Act because they have refused to help some people who might be discriminating against others’ sexual orientation,” he adds.

Which is exactly the sort of statement that has got Cormier feeling so victimized. “The CHRC says we have a right to express our opinion and that the bank shouldn’t discriminate against us, but since homosexuals are also protected by the Charter, they will not take our case. So essentially what they’re saying is, people have the right to discriminate against us.”

Party trouble
Whether or not the No Committee with their wacky agenda is indeed trying to promote hatred against gays and lesbians is open to debate. Cormier, while in one breath pronouncing his love of homosexuals, will, without batting an eye, not hesitate to add that the Gay Games should be banished from Montreal because “these people come here to have fun, to party, and that means to have sex-it’s a fact.” His primary concern being that homosexuals coming here to “party” means that all Canadian citizens-gay and straight-run a greater risk of contracting HIV should infected individuals be allowed into the country.

But Cormier feels there is now a much bigger issue at stake-and at least on one point it becomes difficult to disagree with him.

“We believe the Games will do some harm to our society, but what the Royal Bank is doing is much more damaging than the Gay Games,” he says. “We’re talking about freedom of speech for everybody-gay, heterosexual, men, women, everybody. If the bank has the right to discriminate against us for our political opinion, then why don’t they discriminate against the Quebec government because they are for separation, which is something else the bank feels they might lose money with? Or maybe in the future they will decide to discriminate against some homosexual group because they disagree with something that they do. This has become much more important than the issue of the Gay Games. I would feel just as strongly if the bank were discriminating against gay people.”

Bankers as moral guardians?
For their part, the Royal Bank continues to defend their decision. Bank spokesperson Raymond Chouinard says that the No Committee affair was an exceptional case. “We have accounts with groups that are controversial, but this group is outside our values,” he says. “In our opinion, the declarations of this organization’s representatives are inciting discrimination in a certain sense. It is our position that this group is potentially discriminating in nature, and our interpretation of the law is that we are well supported in our action.”

Cormier says he and the No Committee are now considering taking legal action against the Canadian Human Rights Commission for neglecting to champion their cause. The No Committee 2006 remains without a bank account, but when probed, Cormier admits they have yet to approach any other banks. “We want to stick with the Royal,” he says, perhaps recognizing the political mileage this case may yet bring him. :