Proving that New Democrats actually are allowed to have a sense of humour, former provincial cabinet minister and federal candidate Marilyn Churley commented on the dearth of women in the Ontario legislature by suggesting that there were not enough Janes and too many Dicks in provincial politics. You go, girl.
Speaking of dicks at Queen's Park, Citizenship Minister Mike Colle has resigned after the Auditor-General revealed that his office had awarded more than 32 million dollars to ethnic and cultural groups with "virtually no controls." See, it's easy to get funding from the Province as long as you don't want to keep a library open or something.
Following a two year battle by blind lawyer David Lepofsly, The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered that TTC drivers must call out all stops on their routes. The TTC's argument that it would be "too dangerous" was rejected by the tribunal, probably because it's stupid.
It's been a nasty week on the stock markets, with the benchmark Canadian S&P/TSX index dropping by almost 5%. The sell-off was triggered in the U.S., where it's beginning to dawn on investors that a collapsing housing market and a 9 trillion dollar national debt are the kinds of things that can eventually bite you in the ass.
Photo by jgrantmac from the Torontoist Flickr pool.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
9 trillion dollars, that's something to be proud of. You go Bush!
Call out all stops? That's bullcrap! Do you know how many stops there are on suburban routes? What about stops that don't have any names?
"Uh, this is like, a vacant field and stuff."
They were able to devise a way to communicate to the driver that there's a stop there when they were planning the route, when they were getting approval for the route plan, when they were putting together a training package for the route plan, and when they were doing the training for the route.
So they can somehow, somehow figure out a way to communicate the same concept to the passenger.
As for the idea that there are just sooooooo many stops on suburban routes, why, my heart bleeds for the poor things. The only thing that could be more tragic is getting off at the wrong stop and being stuck there for a half hour because, oh, just to come up with a random example, you're blind.
I've never seen a blind person out here.
Never.
I find many bus drivers don't even know their route. Even if they give out a barely audible stop announcement, at least they'll know where the stops are if someone unfamiliar with the route asks to be told when they get to their destination.
Also, I wonder how much of our money was spent fighting this ruling?
Maybe drivers could call out all stops only when a blind person boards. That way everybody's happy.
But it's going to be difficult to teach the drivers their routes because they could theoretically be assigned to any route in their garage.
Also, I wonder how much of our money was spent fighting this ruling?
The answer is $100,000 to $200,000, according to The Star. The kicker is:
"The TTC will not appeal the decision, said commission chair Adam Giambrone, who put the legal costs to fight the second Lepofsky case at between $100,000 and $200,000.
"'By the end of the year, regardless of the decision, we would have been fully compliant' with automated station stop announcements, he said."
I can't believe they spent that much money fighting against making life easier for blind people. It's outrageous.
#4: Maybe the reason people who are blind don't ride buses is because they aren't confident they'll get to where they need to go.
#7: There are many degrees of vision impairment and asking someone to self-identify as blind just doesn't seem like a fair burden to place on them. Plus, are all people who are blind supposed to suddenly know they should self-identify. It's not like an advertising on buses and streetcars (as is done for the Request Stop program) is going to be all that helpful if the person can't see the sign.
All Lepofsky wanted them to do was to do all the time what they are supposed to do at certain times (bad weather and full buses). What training could possibly be needed beyond a sign affixed to each dashboard - "call out all stops all the time". This is a union issue and once again shows if the ATU don't want it the TTC has to spend money to placate them.
#4: Are you blind?
Blind people aside, I've been on the bus or streetcar many a time without a clear understanding of where I have to get off in some unfamiliar area of the city, and it usually involves trying to frantically squint at miniscule, unilluminated street signs at night as the bus zips past and then having to quickly shove through a bunch of people to get to the door on time if I realize it's my stop—if I make it.
The attitude of "we just drive you in the right direction—knowing city geography is your problem" isn't the right kind of attitude.
I used to take the bus every day at Eglinton, and I witnessed the same situation multiple times: a bunch of people are getting on the bus and all asking the same question ("Does this go to Mt. Pleasant?") and the bus driver snaps in a raised voice, "YES! Can't you read the sign?!" By sign, I guess he meant the schedule posted on a post near the bus, which isn't confusing at all when you don't know where you're going, and which everyone stops to leisurely read when their bus is ready to go.
You're a DRIVER. You KNOW YOUR ROUTE. I necessarily don't. HELP ME. It's YOUR JOB to get me where I'm trying to go along your route.
Yeah, blind people! The Nerve! They should have to tell the driver they're blind! Better yet, lets insist they wear some sort of emblem on their clothes that declares their disability. And then maybe we can do the same for Gays and jews and...oh, wait.
What is so difficult with asking the driver to announce the stop one wants? That's what I do and I'm not blind. It would be annoying to hear every single minor stop being called out and a distraction for the driver who has to memorize all those names as opposed to just looking for the stop marker.
Women can already ask to be let off between stops at night, why not just create a policy for differently able people? That way they can be let off exactly where they want even if it isn't a major stop. Isn't that the best solution?
This isn't just for blind people, but how many times are you riding a bus/streetcar that you're unfamiliar with? Let's say you're meeting your friend somewhere in the middle of Etobicoke and you're usual routes are in Scarborough. You know the street you have to get off at, but you haven't the foggiest what the intersection looks like or how far down the line it is. Wouldn't it be convenient to have the driver help you since they know where they're going? And not just help you, but maybe help anyone else on the bus in a similar situation as you.
What about riding after dark? Because the lights are on inside, it makes it hard to see what's going on outside.
I think that drivers should be announcing main intersections and high traffic stops at the very least. Then, if that works out nicely, move up to announcing every stop. Or maybe if they're really good (and if the ttc gets some more money in the future) each line could get automated announcements. But that seems unlikely. Maybe if the driver controlled a couple "next" or "previous" buttons
Some of the newer buses have a microphone on a flexible boom so that driver's don't even have to move or pick up that telephone receiver to announce stops. Heck, I've seen drivers talking on their cellphones potentially endangering everyone on the bus. I often exit at the front and shake my head at them with a phone gesture to my ear.
Most of the time when I've asked a driver to announce the stop I'm looking for when we get there, they don't. How are they to remember when everyone starts asking them to announce stops? Solution: announce all stops!
It's not like they're announcing every single side street they pass. If it's annoying, try to tune it out like you do with every other annoying sound you hear on the TTC.
The worst is in relation to tourists trying to use the system. We should add the following caveats to all our Toronto Tourism materials:
It's even better when you ask them, "Do you go to Oak Park?" and they confidently assure you that "I go all the way to Sparkfield," which sounds helpful, but only actually is if you're familiar enough with the route to know if Sparkfield is before, after, or even in the same direction at all as Oak Park.
No similarity to serviced routes is intended or implied. File all complaints with International Browsers of the Web Local 9671111.
Of course this can be nothing but a good thing for everyone. I'm having a hard time believing that there are people strongly opposed to a driver calling out all the stops on a bus route!
Approximately 2% of the population of Canada have a seeing disability. Although I personally cannot begin to truly understand their plight, I'm pretty sure that most people, who cannot see, have usually had the compassion and assistance of the remainder of the population whenever they were in need. Blind people have been taking the TTC with out much complaint for many years; I'm not sure why things should be different now. Perhaps what these other blind people did was simply ask to be told when their stop is.
"The (human rights) tribunal ruled yesterday the TTC violated the rights of blind lawyer David Lepofsky by failing to call all stops on surface routes."
According the Human Rights Code of Ontario,
"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap."
This code, to me, means that everyone has the right to equal treatment. This can be agreed upon. In what way is failing to call out stops, discriminatory towards someone? It would not be without dignity that David should need to ask for assistance. It is simply the reality of his life, and I’m sure he’d find almost everyone is willing to assist.
In my opinion, the only discriminatory practice that the TTC actively conducts is the "Request Stop" program, which is only available to women. By definition, this is discrimination as there is not equal treatment between men and women. You won't hear me complaining though, because I actually understand what equal rights truly mean. It is supposed to be equality of opportunity, and judgment by law, and it is not legislation of courtesy.
What David has pursued and even won, is equality of outcome, which is a deterioration of equal rights, mandating that people not only be given equal opportunity, but also equal results. The best example of the absurdity of equality of outcome would be for David to now pursue the idea that it is a violation of his rights that he can't get a drivers license.
Mandating compassion and consideration is a dangerous practice. I believe that anyone at any time, no matter what they do, will not be addressing the special needs of at least someone. If it goes into practice that we punish people anytime someone is able to bring evidence of a failing to consider their own special needs, then we will be punishing many people and institutions all the time.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not against the idea of having bus drivers calling out the street names. It would be helpful to many, and wouldn’t take much effort, then by all means lets get it happening. However, to call it discriminatory and taking legal action because someone does not call out the stops is actually immoral because it implies that the TTC is bigoted and has actually wilfully discriminated against the blind.
Perhaps, rather than using lawyers, litigation, and fear of punishment to get bus drivers to call out stops for the blind, David should simply show a small amount of humility, and ask the bus drivers to call out his stop. However, I’m pretty sure that Mr. Lepofsky was just looking for a good legal battle, being a lawyer and all, and it wouldn’t help him to show humility when he has an opportunity to get headlines.
That's like saying we shouldn't bother with ramps for people in wheelchairs because they can just find some "compassionate person" to carry them up the stairs.
It's not like anyone's asking the drivers to recite a Shakespearean play from memory. It's saying the name of the stop when they stop the vehicle. If that's too unsafe, they can wear a headset to announce the stops so they can better concentrate on talking to a person in the frontmost seats, yapping on their cell phones, yelling at teenagers over the loudspeaker, stopping the bus to run in and get a coffee, and stopping to chat to other drivers coming the opposite way.
Marc, if that was in response to me, then you've missed the point. They're not ASKING the bus drivers to say the street names, they've used legislation under the pretense of discrimination to FORCE the TTC to say the names.
I believe that they should be announcing streets. I'm just appalled that it is considered a violation of rights to the blind that they weren't. The reason such a thing should never be considered a violation of rights, is because requiring special treatment does not mean that it is your right to have it. Such rulings pave the way for a myriad of people declaring a violation of their rights because someone didn't meet their special needs.
Consider this. Can a person who can see also claim it is a violation of their rights that the bus driver doesn't call out street names? If what defines rights is equality, haven't we just ruled for a double standard? Doesn't it mean that we have actually just ruled that blind people have more rights than people with sight?
As with the gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. arguments, it's about equal rights, not special rights.
Honestly, I am always shocked that people seem to have such extreme reactions to minor things that can easily be done to make other people's lives better, and give them access to things that the rest of us take for granted. As for legislation or mandating such changes, if we didn't legislate wheelchair ramps years ago, few building owners would have added them and most buildings would still be without access for people who can't use stairs.
Is not having public places easily accessible fair? No. Is installing ramps and elevators "special rights"? No. Is it equal rights? Yes.
Marc @ 22: Your reply is spot on.
I'm truly and completely baffled that people are against the idea. I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's annoying to hear every stop called? You live in Toronto. You should be used to hearing people talk by now. You're on public transit, not in a private limo. Why don't you walk around with a blindfold on for a week and then see how you feel about it. We all have different needs - equal rights means finding ways of dealing with these needs so that we all end up with an equal level of comfort. Is it against the human rights to give people disability pensions or support payments? By your logic, Hawkins, it would be. Which is absurd.
Also, like people have said, it's useful to many people, not just ones with visual impairments. I've been confused many times and unsure of where to get off a TTC vehicle. Then there are tourists. Toronto seems to forget that it makes a lot of money from tourists, and that people who are just visiting the don't know all the conventions of getting around Toronto.
Also note that subway booth attendants will push your change back at you without telling you what you're supposed to do with it. IMPORTANT: You should automatically know that your fare is included in this pile of change, so don't pocket the coins and walk through
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I did this once before I moved here. Luckily, I wasn't reprimanded, but I was pretty embarrassed later when I realized what I had done.
Marc, what you aren't understanding is that the stop names will be announced once for normal people, and then announced again in a special high-pitched voice that only blind people can hear, thus privileging them with twice the chance to catch the stop name, because frankly that's the only interpretation of Hawkins' argument that makes any damn sense.
I think Hawkins has made a very important point. The TTC didn't fight this because they don't like blind people. They were trying to avoid having a precedent set. Think about how much it will cost to make every station, every stop and every vehicle in the system 100% accessible not just to the blind, but to any disabled person. It would probably be hundreds of millions of dollars to do all the retrofits. The TTC is already cash strapped. I'm sure in a perfect world, they'd be happy to provide better service to the disabled - and they have been working towards that, but where is all of the money going to come from if they are suddenly forced to fix everything all at once?
I'm not sure why the lawyer continued his case after the TTC had announced that the automated stop calling system was already in the works to be rolled out.
I wonder how many of the posters work somewhere that is 100%, or even close to 100% accessible.
The new street cars are supposed to be wheelchair accessible, and the new subway cars will allow them to pass from car to car... uh, if any of these new things are even on the table anymore. Maybe the TTC can tell McGuinty they need hundreds of millions for accessibility upgrades.
Announcing stops = free!
Not only is it free, but it is mandatory for bad weather or for crowded vehicles in order to benefit the sighted. I am therefore at a loss as to what "training" is required by TTC as they claim, short of pinning a notice on each bus saying "treat all journeys as if they were blizzards".
automated announcements for disabled is good; it's the automated ejector button for drunk and disorderly that ttc should be going to court for
On the topic of saving money and stop pandering to special interest groups, why install and maintain escalators (not to mention elevators) at high cost? Rip 'em out, and let all those vigorously fit TTC riders pound the stairs.
Oh, you were born without legs? Or you have a cardiovascular disease? Or you broke your ankle in a car accident? Or you're just plain old? Sorry, this isn't a perfect world.
This is in response to Carly's comment quoted below,
What you have stated here, is that equal rights means that we should all have equal results in life (ie; level of comfort), which is equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity and rights. By that token, everyone should have the "right" to a $1,000,000 home, regardless of the money they earn or the contribution they make to society.
The point of my argument is completely lost when you try to say that under my definition of rights, we would just throw the elder and the diabled onto the streets. Our rights is what allow us as a society to volunteer our money (taxed and redistributed) to support people with special needs, but they should not define or require that we do so.
Because we as a society can provide for the impoverished, and provide access to the disabled, does not make those compassionate acts a right. The money that we give to people with disabilities is called the "disability benefit." There's no question of rights even involved in it. It is not against anyones rights to give them money, and it would also not be against anyones rights to NOT give them money. However, because I personally wouldn't want the person to suffer more than they already do, I'm the first to say that we should volunteer a portion of the tax collection to assist such people with extreme needs, and I would vote against any politician who wanted to deny this assistance to them.
As an individual, I serve the country, and contribute to the community as much as I can. I will stop at the side of the road to help someone with a flat tire, and I'll help get someone out of a snowbank. These are acts of compassion. If I didn't help these people out, would it be a violation of their rights? They were in need of assistance to get their car moving. By YOUR argument, it was their right ro have someone assist them to get their car out of the snowbank in order to give them an 'equal level of comfort.'
Now this moves us into the danger zone of allowing 'equal comforts' to be called 'equal rights.' By mandating compassion as a right, and by saying that someone who doesn't help you is a violation of your rights.
The problem with so many of these 'rights' arguments, is that almost inherantly, when someone is able to have special ruling for their own particular need, it will almost always have another group that is now left in a position where their 'rights' are now being marginalized.
Here's a scenario just with the bus drivers. It's a little out there, but it is just an example.
Say that Joe is a bus driver for the TTC. Joe has been a bus driver for years, and has done his job well. No one notices Joe because he doesn't say much. In fact, he doesn't say anything because he's mute.
Well, now Joe can't fulfill his duties because he has to call out stops. It wasn't a problem before, but now it is. Now he's suddenly being "discriminated" against because he can't talk, and he won't be allowed to drive the bus anymore.
I know, as I said it's a little far fetched, but we can never rule it out. This is a possibility and illustrates the somtimes snowballing effect of considering one persons special circumstances as a priority with granting special rights, when compared to the rest of the population.
Folks. I'm a compassionate and caring individual. I think its good that government offices and publicly owned buildings have wheelchair ramps. I also think its a good idea to have street names called out by bus operators and support the idea of disability benefits. However, I do not believe these are rights, but simply the results of a compassionate and intelligent society that cares for all it's individuals. Especially those who need such care.
Mandating ramps so a wheelchair-bound person doesn't have to be carried up steps like a sack of garbage is not granting them "special rights."
Announcing where the bus is stopping, when the driver already makes other announcements on the existing public address system so a blind person can know where they are supposed to get off is not a "special right."
Equal rights means the right to be treated equally. In the workplace; in housing; in public. To not build structures with those people in mind or to not hire for jobs with all qualified people considered creates a culture of discrimination, whether it be "I can't hire that guy in the wheelchair because we have no ramps for him" or "we can't hire her because she might get pregnant." And that's not fair.
What's shocking is the money spent by the TTC union on fighting this. The "safety" issue they hinge their resistance on in is a load of bunk considering the training they go through, the expertise they enjoy, and the many more significant distractions or hazards the drivers encounter. It's exponentially more dangerous and inconsiderate for a blind person to be dropped-off in the wrong place when it could be easily avoided.
Any change to public services to benefit the disabled is subject to a formal or de facto cost benefit analysis. Thus, providing a chauffeured limo as transit for paraplegics or converting all municipal document into audio files for the visually impaired would be impractical measures,even though they would allow the handicapped to operate on a more level playing field.
However, asking drivers to call out a few street names for the benefit of those who might be blind, lost, confused or from out of town effectively costs nothing and benefits huge numbers of people. I have seen no convincing argument as to why this should be a logistical or training issue.
Marc,
Why would you 'carry a wheelchair-bound person up steps like a sack of garbage' ??
You could carry them up like the 'Ark of the Covenant'
It ought to be automated. A uniform, pleasant, computerized voice, that can play in the background and be ignored.
Not subject to the driver's vocal range, accent, knowledge of the route, willingness to speak clearly and loudly, etc.
You'll soon see just how annoying and useless this mandate will be.
And...
the program could pay for itself without taxpayer money by having said uniform, pleasant, computerized voice, deliver an advertisement once and while such as:
"Next stop Bloor st; and don't forget to enjoy a delicious 'baconator', new from Wendy's. Six strips of hickory smoked bacon piled high atop two 1/4 lb.* patties of fresh, never frozen, beef. Complete with two slices of American cheese, mayo and ketchup for a mountain of mouth-watering taste. Go on, obsess a little."
By that token, everyone should have the "right" to a $1,000,000 home, regardless of the money they earn or the contribution they make to society.
No, that's not what I said. By "level of comfort," I simply meant the ability to do day-to-day things and have the basic necessities of life looked after. Such as knowing where point A and point B are on a public transportation system and being able to get around. I didn't mean we should become Communists.
Hawkins, you're wrong. You insist that is not a question of rights, but a matter of choice. A blind person has the right to use public transit THAT THEIR TAX DOLLARS HAVE PAID FOR ALSO. Using public transit means that they are able to get from their point of origin to their destination within a reasonable amount of time, barring delays or accidents or what-have-you. Missing their stop because a driver does not announce it - and because they are blind, without any kind of sonic or tactile or olfactory cue [i'm not going to bother with taste] - means they are not able to enjoy that right. The system of public transit relies upon visual cues [street signs, landmarks, etc.] almost exclusively that allow riders on surface routes to indicate to the driver that they wish to stop and disembark. For blind people, they cannot rely upon those cues, these signs.
Mr. Lepofsky is not arguing that he is unable to ask the driver to let him know when the vehicle arrives at his stop. I am sure that he does so, as he is at pains to point out in the Toronto Star article. However, it is voluntary for driver to comply, I believe. Furthermore, as Mr. Lepofsky notes, drivers do make errors as they are not accustomed to calling out the stops. A standing job requirement to call out each and every stop as the vehicle approaches means that drivers will have their job performance measured on this criteria. It will be in their best interest to perform to standards and call out each and every stop in a clear voice before the vehicle arrives at that stop. This will create an environment which will easily allow people without sight or with impaired sight to recognize their stop and disembark.
Your example about a driver who is mute is a poor one. First of all, there are communication issues that require for several very important reasons a driver who is able to communicate in English verbally. Next, there are jobs that have requirements that allow for discrimination in specific and limited areas. Swimming instructors must have enough mobility, for instance, to be able to swim well enough that they may impart skill and ability. Requiring that is not an abrogation of human rights.
Finally, why should the onus be upon the person who faces a challenge given their lack of sight? You are asking them to do something that people with sight do not have to do - that would be discriminatory. Human rights are a flexible complex sphere of figuring out what works for society and how we accommodate people's distinct needs to create a society that does not have poverty and misery by dint of minority status.
'andrew'
Aside from the fact that you completely missed the point of what 'Hawkins' was talking about, your logic is bass ackwards.
Hawkins is speaking in the context of what is an unalienable human right, and sorry, 'the right to have bus stops called out' is not one of them. That is a customer service issue. Lepofsky being a customer, TTC being the business. Since Lepofsky is a paying customer (both voluntary through paying a fare, and involuntary due to taxes), then he is entitled to voice his grievence on that basis, and I think they should call out stops for him. In fact the TTC has a LOT to improve upon in it's customer service area, they are notorious for being rather lax in that. However, calling this an essential human right is absurd. I would rather have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness thank you very much. That is what guarantees our equal protection under the law, our right to free speach, our right to peaceful assembly, and a myriad other rights we enjoy including Lepofsky's right to voice his grievence with the TTC. Confusing a customer service issue with a right allows for our 'unalienable rights' to implicitly come under a 'customer service' standard, and as such, our essential rights we do enjoy are now placed under the juridstiction of politicians and law makers. These rights are supposed to be ours, period, not ours because a law maker says so.
Now to get to the specifics of what you wrote:
'Next, there are jobs that have requirements that allow for discrimination in specific and limited areas'
Do you really believe that? Do you know what discrimination is?
discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.
To use your example refusing to hire someone as a lifeguard because they can not swim is NOT discrimination, it's failure to be able to fulfill the job requirement. However, I would argue that hiring a lesser of a lifeguard because they are of a certain race/religion/gender and thus make some sort of quota, is discrimination -- this is also known as 'Affirmative Action'.
I also found your last paragraph quite amusing:
'Finally, why should the onus be upon the person who faces a challenge given their lack of sight? You are asking them to do something that people with sight do not have to do'
Are you completely delusional?
Who do you think the onus is on then? Someone with a disability IS disadvantaged. The onus IS on them to do extra things a non-advantaged person would not need to do if they want to remain independent. For example the onus WOULD be for a blind person to learn braille if they wanted to be able to read. A person with sight would obviously not need to do so. Likewise, crossing the street, the ONUS would be on the blind person to listen very closely, perhaps even use their 'sonic or tactile or olfactory cue', or they could ask someone else who is around if it's safe to cross. Society can do what it can to help, but, if a blind person (or any disadvantaged person) wants to enjoy a an independent life, then the 'onus' is definitely on them to cope with their disability, as 'society' can not be there all the time and everywhere to help them.
At any rate, back to the main point, stop confusing what are essential unalienable rights with societal/cultural niceties.
#41,
From the Ontario Human Rights Code, the preamble:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;
And Whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province;"
The Legislation:
"1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1)."
Furthermore:
"Constructive discrimination
11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,
(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances;"
Your argument doesn't meet these standards.
In regards to the argument about disability disqualifying an i