VOLUME 4, NUMBER 3. SPRING 1983 69 Bruce Kidd 0 NTARIO LEGALIZES DISCRIMINATION performances are now improving at a significantly faster rate than those of males, the present gap is still con- siderable. Thus as long as females are excluded from competition with males, one important avenue for improvement - the challenge of better competition- will be blocked. And as long as female perform- ances are generally inferior to those of males and affirmative-action pro- grams in sport are non-existent, then performance-conscious deci- sion makers will continue to steer the lion's share of resources into men's sport. What makes this vi- cious circle so outrageous is that to- day sport development has become a highly visible, privileged public enterprise. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, for in- stance, heavily subsidizes the pro- vincial sports-governing bodies and the construction of facilities, con- ducts its own provincial games, and annually honours the province's best athletes. So for outstanding fe- male athletes, there's a double stan- dard: we like what you do, the gov- ernment is saying, as long as you don't aspire to play against the best. So much for the Province of Op- portunity. I have been unable to pinpoint exactly why sex discrimination in sport was entrenched in the new Le nouveau Code des droits de la personne de l'Ontario, r6vise' et mis en vigueur en 1981, rend le'gal la discrimination sexuelle duns les sports. Selon cette re'vision, le traitement iga1 en rnatidre de services et d'installations ne s'applique qu'h une organisation ou une activite' d'athlitisme riservie aux personnes d'un m6me sexe. Les notions patriarcales de masculiniti et de fkminite' ont influence' la discrimination sexuelle du nouveau code. Certains faits nouveaux aideront peut-6tre h lutter contre cette discrimination; entre autres, des itudes re'centes de 1'Ontario sur les droits des athldtes au Canada et sur l'e'galite' des chances en sport. An ugly thing happened on the way to the revision of the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1981. The draft bill circulated for public hear- ings appeared to extend the antidis- crimination protections of the code to those sporting activities and as- sociations that previously the On- tario Supreme Court had ruled be- yond the scope of the existing code. Yet there was some ambiguity in the draft bill, and those deputations that wanted to end sex discrimi- nation in sport urged the Conserv- ative government to clarify its in- tent. In the final version of the bill it did just that, but the effect was to legalize discrimination. According to subsection 19(2) of the new code, which went into effect in June of 1982, "the right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to serv- ices and facilities is not infringed where membership in an athletic organization or participation in an athletic activity is restricted to per- sons of the same sex." Asimilar pro- tection for sex discrimination in ac- cess to the services or facilities of a recreational club was written into subsection 19(3). The immediate effect of the new code was to nullify more than twenty complaints of sex discrimi- nation in sport which had been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Henceforth, the law says, girls and women who have been excluded from membership in a sports-governing body or a com- petition simply on the basis of gen- der have no legal recourse. The ul- timate effect will be to perpetuate present inequalities in opportunity. Historically, males have been ac- tively encouraged to participate in sport, while females have been systematically discouraged. Not surprisingly, males enjoy the best opportunities and in most sports have achieved the highest standard of performance. Although female