Marriage Redefined - Golf is Next
ASYNIEN* OBTAINS BREAKTHROUGH RULING
(*Association of Sufferers of Yips Needing Immediate Equality Now")
- Supreme Court of Canada orders golf courses to install 3 ft. diameter holes on all greens
Ottawa – June 15th, 2006
Litigia L’Amour, counsel to ASYNIEN met with reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court Building to celebrate the historical ruling. The majority judgment written by Madam Justice Rosie Abella found that the rule of golf limiting the diameter of the hole on a green to a mere 4 1/4 inches “was repugnant, and violated the human rights of her clients to enjoy the thrill of shooting sub-par scores and regularly sinking 10 foot putts.”
“It is our view that the dignity of persons suffering from the yips , the existence of which makes it virtually impossible for one to post consistently low scores in golf, is violated by the severe limitation of the size of the hole on the greens of golf courses” pronounced Madam Justice Abella. “The humiliation and discrimination felt by golfers afflicted with the yips as they fail to make putts regularly sunk by yipless golfers constitutes an affront to their human dignity. Accordingly, we conclude that the definition of “hole” found in the Rules of Golf be declared invalid to the extent it states that the hole ‘must be 4 1/4 inches (108 mm) in diameter’.” The court accepted the petitioner’s argument that the size should be increased to up to 36 inches in diameter.
Counsel for the Royal and Ancient Golf Association unsuccessfully argued that the Rules of Golf are steeped in history and tradition and have formed the framework within which men and women have played the game for centuries. The discriminatory nature of the game against which the petitioners have launched their attack, is based not on a violation of human rights but rather on the natural differences in ability, effort, co-ordination and aptitude amongst those who choose to play the game. As a sport, golf by definition creates conditions of inequality by declaring that there are winners and losers. This is the nature of sport argued the R&A counsel.
Changing the definition of the size of the hole, changes the nature of the game of golf, argued counsel for the R&A. “This one change in definition means the game that will be played using manhole size holes may resemble golf in many respects, but it won’t be golf”, said R&A spokesman Angus MacDonald.
This entire line of argument was rejected by the Supreme Court justices who ruled that under the “living tree” concept of the Canadian Charter of Rights, the post-modern enlightened recognition of the damage to human dignity caused by persistent failure demands that society be willing to change old prescriptions and definitions established by less discerning early lawmakers.
The court drew on its experience in the same-sex marriage debate and the resulting court ordered redefinition of marriage, and found the true nature of golf to be one of “close personal relationships”, not that of a sport of skill and competition. The court took judicial notice of the many social indicia of the game which support this new characterization. It is almost always played by groups of individuals, often as part of an outing specially planned for the participants focused on close personal interaction including conversation, eating, drinking, and carousing together. “Accordingly, the Charter of Rights and its goals of creating equal opportunity for all Canadians and of eradicating discrimination clearly applies to the governance of such close personal relationships” said Madam Justice Abella, a 33 handicapper.
The court did rule that so long as a golf club installed a 3 ft. diameter hole on each of its greens, it could retain the traditional size hole for yipless players and golf association officials would not be forced to demand that all players use the larger hole. However, they must ensure that players declaring themselves to be ASYNIEN members are free to avail themselves of the larger hole, and have their score recognized as valid and of equal value to that of traditional players.
Asked to comment on the fact that most Canadians would find the news that the rule prescribing the size of the hole in golf was inherently discriminatory, Prime Minister Paul Martin said he supported the SCC decision. “It is all about human rights and you can’t choose your rights willy-nilly. These yip sufferers deserve to have their self worth and dignity preserved, and if redefining the rules of golf to increase the size of the hole is what it takes, I am all for it.”
At a celebratory party in a popular Ottawa nightclub, where ASYNIEN members and their counsel were joined by a number of Supreme Court justices in a show of solidarity and support, one particularly forthright member of ASYNIEN volunteered that if its members are “allowed to participate as regular golfers in the clubs and institutions that traditional golfers claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of golf, and in turn they themselves will not be the same. Traditional golfers are right, for example, that if ASYNIEN golfers participate in golf tournaments, the game of golf will change, and since the game of golf is one of the institutions that support traditional golfers’ identities, golf and traditional golfers will change as well.”
(*Association of Sufferers of Yips Needing Immediate Equality Now")
- Supreme Court of Canada orders golf courses to install 3 ft. diameter holes on all greens
Ottawa – June 15th, 2006
Litigia L’Amour, counsel to ASYNIEN met with reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court Building to celebrate the historical ruling. The majority judgment written by Madam Justice Rosie Abella found that the rule of golf limiting the diameter of the hole on a green to a mere 4 1/4 inches “was repugnant, and violated the human rights of her clients to enjoy the thrill of shooting sub-par scores and regularly sinking 10 foot putts.”
“It is our view that the dignity of persons suffering from the yips , the existence of which makes it virtually impossible for one to post consistently low scores in golf, is violated by the severe limitation of the size of the hole on the greens of golf courses” pronounced Madam Justice Abella. “The humiliation and discrimination felt by golfers afflicted with the yips as they fail to make putts regularly sunk by yipless golfers constitutes an affront to their human dignity. Accordingly, we conclude that the definition of “hole” found in the Rules of Golf be declared invalid to the extent it states that the hole ‘must be 4 1/4 inches (108 mm) in diameter’.” The court accepted the petitioner’s argument that the size should be increased to up to 36 inches in diameter.
Counsel for the Royal and Ancient Golf Association unsuccessfully argued that the Rules of Golf are steeped in history and tradition and have formed the framework within which men and women have played the game for centuries. The discriminatory nature of the game against which the petitioners have launched their attack, is based not on a violation of human rights but rather on the natural differences in ability, effort, co-ordination and aptitude amongst those who choose to play the game. As a sport, golf by definition creates conditions of inequality by declaring that there are winners and losers. This is the nature of sport argued the R&A counsel.
Changing the definition of the size of the hole, changes the nature of the game of golf, argued counsel for the R&A. “This one change in definition means the game that will be played using manhole size holes may resemble golf in many respects, but it won’t be golf”, said R&A spokesman Angus MacDonald.
This entire line of argument was rejected by the Supreme Court justices who ruled that under the “living tree” concept of the Canadian Charter of Rights, the post-modern enlightened recognition of the damage to human dignity caused by persistent failure demands that society be willing to change old prescriptions and definitions established by less discerning early lawmakers.
The court drew on its experience in the same-sex marriage debate and the resulting court ordered redefinition of marriage, and found the true nature of golf to be one of “close personal relationships”, not that of a sport of skill and competition. The court took judicial notice of the many social indicia of the game which support this new characterization. It is almost always played by groups of individuals, often as part of an outing specially planned for the participants focused on close personal interaction including conversation, eating, drinking, and carousing together. “Accordingly, the Charter of Rights and its goals of creating equal opportunity for all Canadians and of eradicating discrimination clearly applies to the governance of such close personal relationships” said Madam Justice Abella, a 33 handicapper.
The court did rule that so long as a golf club installed a 3 ft. diameter hole on each of its greens, it could retain the traditional size hole for yipless players and golf association officials would not be forced to demand that all players use the larger hole. However, they must ensure that players declaring themselves to be ASYNIEN members are free to avail themselves of the larger hole, and have their score recognized as valid and of equal value to that of traditional players.
Asked to comment on the fact that most Canadians would find the news that the rule prescribing the size of the hole in golf was inherently discriminatory, Prime Minister Paul Martin said he supported the SCC decision. “It is all about human rights and you can’t choose your rights willy-nilly. These yip sufferers deserve to have their self worth and dignity preserved, and if redefining the rules of golf to increase the size of the hole is what it takes, I am all for it.”
At a celebratory party in a popular Ottawa nightclub, where ASYNIEN members and their counsel were joined by a number of Supreme Court justices in a show of solidarity and support, one particularly forthright member of ASYNIEN volunteered that if its members are “allowed to participate as regular golfers in the clubs and institutions that traditional golfers claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of golf, and in turn they themselves will not be the same. Traditional golfers are right, for example, that if ASYNIEN golfers participate in golf tournaments, the game of golf will change, and since the game of golf is one of the institutions that support traditional golfers’ identities, golf and traditional golfers will change as well.”
posted by Ben Buan | 10:18 p.m.
<< Home