Human Rights Each Day.com

Why I didn't wear a pink shirt

I don’t like wearing a pink shirt on Pink Shirt Day.

       Don’t get me wrong, when years ago Nova Scotia students David Shephard and Travis Price decided to show a school bully they can wear whatever they want and he can’t get away with bullying anyone…they were very successful.  What they did was fantastic and if everyone did something similar when a bully tried to get his/her way, we’d be on a very different planet.

       But now everyone has jumped on the bandwagon, with media and other corporations putting up big banners and encouraging everyone to wear pink.  I don’t bother.

       I would in an instant if my “actions” actually did something (how tough is it to wear a certain colour shirt once a year?).  If I were to use my pink shirt to go up to someone who was giving me trouble or calling me names, I’d do it in a heartbeat.  That would be a wonderful use of wearing a pink shirt and it was very successful when David and Travis rallied many friends from Central Kings Rural High School in Cambridge, Nova Scotia wore pink to show the bully that not only “homosexuals” wear pink.

       Somehow, encouraging people to wear pink shirts and to talk about bullying, for one particular day of the year is magically supposed to do something.  But words without actions are meaningless.  And I mean truly meaningless because a lot of time, money and resources may be put into a day that doesn’t tell us anything new.  Here’s the standard script:

• Stand up to a bully
• Talk to someone if you are being bullying
• Speak up if you see others being bullied

       Well, that pretty much covers it and these are wonderful and valid actions to take.  But I’d be surprised if anyone over the age of 6 hasn’t heard some version of this…yet bullies still persist with kids and adults still afraid to speak up.  Know why?

• The fear of a bully is greater than our belief that something will be done
• Bullies prosper in young age and in old age…just look at some of the people leading the government of Canada (or ask a Canadian government scientist)
• Despite all the protections people are promised for speaking up, we see many examples where no protections are truly given and people can’t afford to lose a job or opportunity.

       I could go on, but then I would be stating the obvious.  If we really want to stop bullying then we have to hand out real consequences to those who abuse others.  That’s true for the school yard as it is for the workplace.  In my work, I’m constantly telling management that it’s not good enough to hold onto “top performers” if they abuse others.  Lay down the law, expect change and if not, show them the door.

       Yesterday was pink shirt day and if we want to celebrate the actions of two students who took a stand, I’m all for it.  But it will take more actions like theirs, not just the symbolic stuff that has followed, to make real change.  Know what else happened yesterday?

       U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled a statue commemorating Rosa Parks, the African American woman who wouldn’t give up her seat for a white passenger.  Her actions lead to her arrest, but also to the ruling segregated buses were unconstitutional in the U.S..  In the process, she lost her job and lived most of her life in obscurity as she had to move up north to get any kind of job.  Now talk about standing up to bullies.

       Or yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Saskatchewan’s Human Rights provisions against hate crimes were in fact constitutional.  Despite a tsunami of opposition from every right wing mouth piece, James Komar, Brendan Wallace, Guy Taylor and Kathy Hamre, with the complete support of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, took William Whatcott to Human Rights saying his disgusting pamphlets incited hatred against gays and lesbians. (By the way, many civil libertarians also wanted the hate provisions struck down.  I often agree with them, but not on this one.)

The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court was penned by Justice Marshall Rothstein.  He wrote:

“Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing emotional distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. If a group of people are considered inferior, sub-human, or lawless, it is easier to justify denying the group and its members equal rights or status…As the majority becomes desensitized by the effects of hate speech, the concern is that some members of society will demonstrate their rejection of the vulnerable group through conduct. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups. These attacks can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

       You want, guts?  You want to stand up to bullies?  How about sticking your neck out so far that you have hate groups all over the world saying vile things about you.  These four did, along with many supporters.  Mr. Whatcott – someone who says he used to be homosexual – will likely continue saying the horrible things and there will be plenty of pressure on the Saskatchewan government to change the law.  Hopefully the government won’t cave and hopefully Mr. Whatcott will be thrown in jail if keeps saying and writing his dangerous filth.  Say what you want…but from jail if it's a criminal offense.

       If you want to wear pink, go ahead.  But while you’re wearing pink, stand up to someone who’s being a bully.  When that happens, I’d be happy to support pink shirt day.  One last quote from David Shepherd, I found on a CBC website.  It was in response to the fact that their pink shirt campaign shut up the bullies:

"If you can get more people against them … to show that we're not going to put up with it and support each other, then they're not as big as a group as they think are," he says.

Wise words for such a young man.

Stephen

Related Resources:

    
 
This blog: http://www.humanrightseachday.com/

My website: http://www.stephenhammond.ca

My Podcast: Type in “HumanRightsaDay” to the iTunes store and listen to each day's event from my book, Steps in the Rights Direction, or just click here.

My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rightstoday (each day has historical human rights info)

Stephen Hammond, B.A., LL.B., CSP, is a lawyer-turned professional speaker. He’s written two books, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters and Steps in the Rights Direction: 365 human rights celebrations and tragedies that inspired Canada and the world. Managing Human Rights at Work can be purchased on his website www.StephenHammond.ca

copyright - Stephen Hammond - Why I didn't wear a pink shirt

Are quotas for Canadian women the only answer?

       Depending on where you lived and what colour your skin, from the time of Confederation it took women between 49 and 93 years to get the vote.  That involved a lot of protests, petitions arrests and political persuasion.  I wonder if, in this day of instant media, women (and men) are as eager to wait for similar results?  In other words, are quotas the only answer?

       In a little over a week, Canadians have been bombarded with news on the limits of progress we had expected women to make.  Here are those I noticed:

•    Catalyst, the non-profit research organization supporting the advancement of women, issued a report entitled, “Good Intentions, Imperfect Execution? Women Get Fewer of the Hot Jobs Needed to Advance.”  Their research found women getting fewer high profile jobs, smaller budgeted projects and less critical responsibilities than men.  These findings came from surveys of 1,660 high potential men and women graduates in Canada, Asia, United States and Europe, over an 11 year period.

•    The Council of Canadian Academies issued a report which shows the continued lack of equality in Canadian universities even though women have been outnumbering men for more than 20 years in these institutions.  The inequality turns up in pay, full professorial jobs, and child-care issues that affect tenure and advancement.

•    RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson spoke about an internal audit report which shows a “clear, unassailable” bias against the promotion of women in the upper ranks of the RCMP.

•      In my own profession, Canada’s largest law society, Ontario’s Law Society of Upper Canada, debated getting rid of a pilot maternity leave program put into place to help women lawyers stay in their practise while away on maternity leave.  While women make up more than 50% of law schools, many women drop out within five years of practising law, often due to having children.  In the end, the Law Society voted overwhelmingly to keep the program, but limit it to lawyers earning no more than $50,000.

       It’s tough to identify the barriers that keep women from full equality.  It’s tough because we assume we’ve come such a long way that other than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, no one would openly discriminate against women.  It’s not always easy to see the long-standing practises which favour guys like me (or any guys).  It takes real effort to look at the barriers and decide a program or a process has to change.

       A couple weeks ago I was invited to speak to the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Sciences.  Before I spoke, I listened to Peter Kilpatrick, Dean of the College of Engineering from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.  In a short period of time, while other American and Canadian engineering faculties struggle to get more women in their faculties, this faculty went from 15% to 30% women students in just a few years.

       They made these gains by hiring more women faculty, teamed with colleges to entice more women into engineering and other methods.  One of the most intriguing things they did – that caught my attention – is they clustered women engineering students into campus residences.  While there were a certain number of women engineering students, they were all spread out and so when put more of the women together they realized they weren’t alone and could count on each other for camaraderie and support. Who would have thought?  Not me.

       There are many alternatives to quotas, but if we don’t look to bold and creative ways to solve the gender inequality issue, many in the public will seek quotas, even though most people don’t like that alternative.  In yesterday’s Globe and Mail, the front page of the Business section featured BMO corporate board director Guylaine Saucier.  In the past she opposed quotas for women on boards, but since then she’s had a change of heart because she has seen some remarkable women appointed, due to quotas in other countries. According to Catalyst, since 2008 nine countries have adopted quotas for gender and other characteristics for their boards.

       I have nothing against quotas, because it would be foolish for any organization to hire or appoint women who are not qualified.  But it just takes a bit more work to go outside the “old boys network” and find other qualified candidates.  In the four examples of inequality I noted at the beginning, all of them are looking thoughtfully at ways of reducing the gender gap.  Needless to say, that’s a good thing.  But if these and other organizations want to avoid quotas, it won’t be enough to sit back and see who knocks on their door.

I’ll leave you with a few choice quotes from days gone by:

        Almost 100 years ago, when Manitoba women and men spoke to Conservative Premier Rodmond Roblin and his government about granting women the vote, he said there was “Nothing wrong with a society that produced such attractive, pure, and noble ladies, but the mother that is worthy of the name and of the good affection of a good man has a hundredfold more influence in shaping public opinion around her dinner table than she would have in the market place, hurling her eloquent phrases to the multitude.”

       In 1954 a woman went to see the Dean of Dalhousie Law School, Horace E. Read about becoming a lawyer.  Dean Read replied, “Madam, we have no room here for dilettantes. Why don’t you just go home and take up crocheting?”  This woman just happened to be Bertha Wilson, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1982.  Even at that time, our Chief Justice, Bora Laskin told Pierre Trudeau there were more men deserving than Ms. Wilson.  Trudeau appointed her anyway.
 
       Finally, from one of my favourite feminists, the late Bella Abzug.  She was elected to the House of Representatives in New York City in the 70’s.  She said, “They used to give us a day--it was called International Women's Day. In 1975 they gave us a year, the Year of the Woman. Then from 1975 to 1985 they gave us a decade, the Decade of the Woman. I said at the time, who knows, if we behave they may let us into the whole thing. Well, we didn't behave and here we are.”

 

Stephen

Related Resources:

    
 
This blog: http://www.humanrightseachday.com/

My website: http://www.stephenhammond.ca

My Podcast: Type in “HumanRightsaDay” to the iTunes store and listen to each day's event from my book, Steps in the Rights Direction, or just click here.

My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rightstoday (each day has historical human rights info)

Stephen Hammond, B.A., LL.B., CSP, is a lawyer-turned professional speaker. He’s written two books, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters and Steps in the Rights Direction: 365 human rights celebrations and tragedies that inspired Canada and the world. Both can be purchased on his website www.StephenHammond.ca

copyright - Stephen Hammond - Are quotas for Canadian women the only answer?

When the majority doesn't count

      

       How does an American president win 50% of the popular vote, by a margin of almost 3 million votes, with only 39% of the white vote?

Because things are changing.  And just as they are changing in the US, they are changing in Canada.

       But let’s go back to the United States for a moment.  While only 39% of white people voted for President Barack Obama, here’s what he won:

•    55% of women
•    93% of blacks
•    71% of Hispanics
•    73% of Asians

       The percentage of Americans who are white according to the 2010 U.S. census was 72%, and if you include non-Hispanic whites it is only 64%, down from previous years.

       The Republicans not only ignored the changing demographics in the U.S. they actually created policies to piss a lot of these people off.  So it was their choice.  And despite the fact that Barack Obama wasn’t able to deliver on his economic promises and employment numbers, he was able to convince those considered “minorities” to support him and his party.

       So what does this mean for Canadians?  While we don’t have the same Hispanic population as the Americans do, our population is changing rapidly, including:

•    While we had a little “blip” upwards in our birth rate, it is still just 1.68 births per woman in Canada, well below the 2.1 births to replace our population
•    We are only a few years away from Canadians in the age group of 65+ being more populous than those who are 14 and younger
•    One in five Canadians is an immigrant (and that data is 6 years old)
•    Muslims are the fastest growing religious group (and that is 11 years old)
•    The Philippines have overtaken China and India as the biggest source country for immigrants coming to Canada.  Very few white people immigrate to Canada.
•    2011 was the year Stats Canada said all our net employment growth started coming from immigrants
•    While the first nations population grew 29% between 1996 & 2006, the Metis population grew 91%

       I could go on, but the point has already been made.  Just like the U.S., our population is changing, and quickly.  It’s not just political parties that need to come to grips with that, so do employers.  If employers act like U.S. Republicans and wait for people to come their way, they’ll be disappointed.  However, if like the Democrats, employers actively go after the new Canadian population, not just with outreach, but with policies that actually support “differences”, then they will reap the benefits.

       So someone who looks like me is still considered a "majority".  It's just that someone who looks like me shouldn't assume everyone is going to just cater to me...and only me.

Stephen

Today's quiz:   One thing that is now official.  Years ago, when I published my book, Managing Human Rights at Work, I wrote that when someone uses the term “guy” or “guys” when speaking to a group of men and women, there are many women who don’t like it.  Well, since that book came out, just a few years ago, “guys” is used by virtually everyone to refer to men, a mixed crowd and even when just talking about women.  It’s not that I take my cues from an American president, but when he uses certain terminology, I figure it must be official (excluding anything George Bush ever tried to say).

When President Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech, and he said “guys”, who was he speaking to/about?  The first person to give me the correct answer will win a copy of my book, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters where you can read about "guys".

Related Resources:

    
 
This blog: http://www.humanrightseachday.com/

My website: http://www.stephenhammond.ca

My Podcast: Type in “HumanRightsaDay” to the iTunes store and listen to each day's event from my book, Steps in the Rights Direction, or just click here.

My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rightstoday (each day has historical human rights info)

Stephen Hammond, B.A., LL.B., CSP, is a lawyer-turned professional speaker. He’s written two books, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters and Steps in the Rights Direction: 365 human rights celebrations and tragedies that inspired Canada and the world. Both can be purchased on his website www.StephenHammond.ca

copyright - Stephen Hammond - When the majority doesn't count

Aging in Canada and how I became a "senior" one afternoon

       Well, it finally happened…and when I least expected it.  Last week while speaking to a group at the Harrison Hot Springs resort, I decided to go early in the day to play a round of golf at a course nearby.  As I made my way to the counter of the pro shop to see if there was room for a single player, the young woman asked, “senior?”  I replied “Really?!?”  And although I wasn’t rude in the way I said it, she clued in that her desire to save me $15 with the senior’s rate, might not be going over very well.

       Not only did she stumble over herself to explain her great intentions, but another fellow behind the counter, a little older and I’m guessing a lot wiser, recognized that not everyone is happy to get the dollar savings if the price to be paid is being called a “senior”.  And by rights, I guess I can’t get too concerned since this course gives a seniors rate at the ripe old age of 55 and next February I’ll be 54.  It’s just that I get so many comments from people thinking I look younger (Note to self: check for tell-tale signs of lying when people tell me how young I look).

       Well, I better get used to it, and from what I see coming out of Statistics Canada, there are a lot of others who are also getting used to it.  While Stats Canada released information about families this week, back in May, they gave us a snap shot of the age of Canadians from the 2011 census.  One of the quotes got my attention:

       “In 2011, census data showed for the first time that there were more people aged 55 to 64, typically the age group where people leave the labour force, than aged 15 to 24, typically the age group where people enter it.”

       They also noted that while the number of seniors aged 65 and over increased 14.1%, the number of children aged 14 and under increased only 0.5%.  Therefore, as you can see from the chart below, it won’t be long before the number of Canadian seniors overtakes the number of youngins’.


We don’t seem to realize exactly how much our aging population is driving change in this country.  For example:

•    With more people leaving the workforce than entering it, this means all our net employment growth comes from immigration (not in the future. Now).

•    Since most immigrants coming to this country tend not to look like me, or went to the same religious institutions I did, Canadians will have to find ways to accommodate different practises, even more than we do today.

•    The fastest growing religious population in Canada is Muslims, yet in a 2010 poll, 55% of Canadians answered “no” when asked if “Muslims share our values.”  We’ve got to reconcile this to avoid the horrible job many European countries are doing, not integrating Muslim immigrants and not giving them equal opportunities.

•    Now that mandatory retirement is pretty much a thing of the past (federal legislation ends that practise in December), employers (and co-workers) will have to find ways of working with older workers who want to continue working.  Do you now get rid of someone if they “slow down”?  Or if someone does “slow down”, do you need to accommodate them, since age is a protected ground of discrimination?

•    How are we going to  pay for increased health care which comes with an aging population when so many of us believe the politicians who want to cut our taxes even more?  We can’t have it both ways and we’ll have to decide what to do.

       Look, I get that my opening comments suggest perhaps I’m not aging gracefully.  But I had no crisis when I turned 40 or 50, so there’s hope for me.  It just took me by surprise.  Now if you wonder if I said anything when she gave me the $15 discount as a senior…I’ll let you decide for yourself…

Happy aging everyone!

Stephen

Last skill testing question:   Deb Owen from Victoria was the first person to tell me that Klondike Kate was the first woman to become a special constable for the RCMP when she was in Whitehorse during the gold rush.  Deb won a copy of my book, Managing Human Rights at Work, but since she already had a copy, she gave it to her boss, Greg.  Congratulations to both Deb and Greg.

Today's skill testing question:   On September 20, 1973 Billie Jean King won the "battle of the sexes" in tennis over self-proclaimed sexist tennis player Bobby Riggs at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas.  Riggs and King became friends until his death in 1995.  But King had to overcome other forms of sexism in the sport of tennis and fought for equal pay for women athletes.  In 2007 what prestigious tennis tournament announced they would pay equal prize money to both men and women?  The first person who can tell me the name of the tennis tournament will win a copy of my book, Managing Human Rights at Work.

Related Resources:

    
 
This blog: http://www.humanrightseachday.com/

My website: http://www.stephenhammond.ca

My Podcast: Type in “HumanRightsaDay” to the iTunes store and listen to each day's event from my book, Steps in the Rights Direction, or just click here.

My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rightstoday (each day has historical human rights info)

Stephen Hammond, B.A., LL.B., CSP, is a lawyer-turned professional speaker. He’s written two books, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters and Steps in the Rights Direction: 365 human rights celebrations and tragedies that inspired Canada and the world. Both can be purchased on his website www.StephenHammond.ca

copyright - Stephen Hammond - Aging in Canada and how I became a "senior" one afternoon

Race, Skin Colour and Foot-in-Mouth

       A couple days ago, I was riding in a New York City subway when I overheard the woman sitting next to me say to her husband that an advertisement above our heads was “politically correct” because it seemed to represent most people in the ad.  I noticed this ad before and I mentioned to her that none of the caricatures were visibly disabled, so they missed at least one.  It was clear both of them were visiting from United Kingdom and in her very British accent, she said, “but there’s no chinky-chinks in there.”  I turned to this woman of Chinese descent and said, “what?” (don’t worry, not in any rude way, although the Queen might have preferred, “pardon?”).  I wasn’t sure I heard her right, but in fact I had.

       I said something like, “Is that terminology you usually use, or is that acceptable in Britain” to which she replied that in her household and upbringing it was and is quite common.  We talked a little more and I was able to deduce that while she and her family might find it acceptable, I doubt she’d want me saying that to her.  We laughed and went on to easier topics – politics.

       When it comes to race, there are plenty of things that are obvious as right or wrong (see how I had to stop myself from writing “black or white”).  But there are other things that aren’t clear and we have to figure them out as we go along.

       Take for example a few weeks ago in Victoria.  Jack and I were in a park close to home with our dog Willis.  He was chasing after a ball (what else) when we came across people we know.  The couple had two children and they came over, trying to get Willis’s attention away from the ball.  Since it was a hot day, I got Willis to sit beside me and drink some water as he panted madly.  I said to their son, “It’s even hotter for Willis because he’s black” and when he said, “Is that bad?” I immediately felt my foot jam into my mouth.  He is Hispanic and his younger sister is Black.

       I looked to their father for guidance and he said, “there’s a bit of sensitivity about that” but he knew I meant no harm at all.  It was merely an innocent comment that might have been misinterpreted by his son.  But when we said good-bye and Jack, Willis and I carried on, I said to Jack, “I think I may have set race relations back a generation.”

       Now don’t interpret too much yet, because I want to relay another incident that took place shortly after that one.  While in Vancouver I was in the elevator of a building and person I know got on.  It was another hot day and we made small talk about the heat.  He then said, “You’ve got it easy!  Just look at me!  How is it that my ancestors come from the hot climates but we get hotter because of the colour of our skin?”  I wasn’t sure if he was actually miffed at me for having it easy (yet again), or if he was being light.  Hoping that it was in the light category, I gave one of those quiet nervous laughs that could be changed into a cough if by the look on his face I read the situation wrong.

       I try my best and even when I slip up, I don’t fret too much as long as I’m coming from a good place.  But there are some things that just bug me and I’m surprised we haven’t come far enough when it comes to the colours of skin, ethnicity and our own prejudices.

       Being that I’m a news hog, I’m in the middle of scouring two newspapers.  When I get behind on my papers, I often use plane rides to catch up.  Since I’m writing this while changing planes in Toronto, I’m reading yesterday’s New York Times and Globe and Mail.

       The Times has an article about racial profiling in U.S. airports.  It’s not your usual racial profiling (and if you’re of the “race” that tends to get profiled, you know what I’m talking about).  It’s about special training given to a select group of federal officers at U.S. airports to identify mannerisms of potential terrorists.  This team in the “behaviour detection” program has led to complaints that according to the Times, is actually a “magnet for racial profiling, targeting not only Middle Easterners but also blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.”  The front page article first appeared a week ago and today’s paper notes that the Transportation Security Administration officers will now undergo “special training.”

       Funny, that’s what I thought they were getting in the first place.  If these complaints and this investigation are correct, it disturbs me – not just as someone who cares about human rights, but as someone who flies a lot for a living.  When the people we trust with our safety just fall back on old stereotypes, I don’t feel safe…at all.  What struck me a week ago, is that these people are already getting special training in an area I’ve thought we need way more of.  So if the usual stereotypes kick in for those with special training, imagine what’s going on elsewhere.

       And then there’s the article in the Globe and Mail…the one about changes to our new $100 bill.  You know…when focus groups in Montreal and Fredericton didn’t like the image of a woman looking into a microscope on the new hundred because she appeared to be Asian, the Bank of Canada changed the image.  The bank said they took out any ethnic specific features, which is in keeping with their policy.

       I’m looking at the enlarged picture in the paper and on line and unless I’m wrong, I don’t think the image has taken out the ethnicity of the woman at all – they’ve just replaced it with someone who looks like me (minus the gender part).  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against white Caucasians…after all, I’m one of them.  But come on, haven’t we moved beyond this?

       When it comes to ethnicity and skin colour, there are times we try our best and there are other times our so-called “best” is not good enough.

Stephen

Today's skill testing question:   On August 20, 1869 Katherine Ryan was born.  Later she became known as Klondike Kate when she ventured up to Whitehorse during the gold rush.  She had many occupations, including golf mine prospector, nurse and café owner.  However, due to her capability to handle unruly characters, she got into another occupation that made her the first woman to do so.  The first person who can tell me what that "first" was, will win a copy of my book, Managing Human Rights at Work.

Training Manual - For several months I've been writing a training manual.  Over the years I've heard from a number of people that they'd like the tools to do their own in-house training for harassment, discrimination, bullying, the changing face of Canada...bascially all the education and resources to create a respectful workplace.  I don't mind saying that this is an enormous job as I'm having to put everything down on paper, as well as create all the resources so that it's bascially "respect in a box" or better still, a binder.  I'm creating several different training sessions from 15 minutes all the way up to one full day.  And most important - it's 100% Canadian content.  If you're interested in finding out more, drop me an email at Stephen@StephenHammond.ca or just stay tuned.  I'll keep you posted.

Related Resources:

    
 
This blog: http://www.humanrightseachday.com/

My website: http://www.stephenhammond.ca

My Podcast: Type in “HumanRightsaDay” to the iTunes store and listen to each day's event from my book, Steps in the Rights Direction, or just click here.

My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Rightstoday (each day has historical human rights info)

Stephen Hammond, B.A., LL.B., CSP, is a lawyer-turned professional speaker. He’s written two books, Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 practical tips to prevent human rights disasters and Steps in the Rights Direction: 365 human rights celebrations and tragedies that inspired Canada and the world. Both can be purchased on his website www.StephenHammond.ca

copyright - Stephen Hammond - Race, Skin Colour and Foot-in-Mouth