Bring spaghetti and win big

DAVE GORDON

By law, you might now win $10,000 if you bring your own food to a cafeteria. Last month, a court case was settled that involved the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal being sued by a man named Yvon Verreault. Verreault brought his own food into the hospital's kosher snack bar, violating their posted rules, then sued for being asked to leave.

Verreault won the case through the Quebec Human Rights Commission, on the basis of "discrimination" and his "right to privacy."

This is an example of someone who decides that he should get to set the rules. Verreault apparently determined that if he wasn't aware of another place to eat his spaghetti, he'd simply flout the rules. Or perhaps he didn't care about the rules in the first place.

No restaurant would allow outside food in, religious practices or no. What did he expect? Even a Jew bringing in home-made kosher food would be asked to pack up.

Contrary to what the court insists, Verreault was not "discriminated" against. His food was. He would have been allowed to stay had he bought food there, like everybody else. In the hospital's 70-year history, people have been respectful of the kosher food rules. Verreault believed it was his "right" to disregard the religious laws of the patrons of the 30-table snack bar. He evidently thought that the snack bar was like a park bench, where the public can do anything it pleases.

If, by his reckoning, there are no rules in a hospital regarding where people can eat, I should be able to walk into any patient's room and eat there. If there are no food rules in a hospital, and if it is in fact a "public place," as the human rights council insists, what's stopping me from inviting 30 of my friends to a party in a random cafeteria, catered by Luigi's Italian Eats?

According to the report, Verreault did ask where he could pursue alternate eating arrangements, but he did not receive what he believed to be an adequate answer. It seems as though he did not look very hard to find an acceptable place to eat, as it turns out that there was an available room nearby.

Most hospitals have information desks, maps and information hotlines to guide visitors to any part of the hospital. Just because Verreault didn't have a guide to show him proper eating areas does not mean that there weren't ways for him to get the information himself.

The court also contends that since he did not belong to the group of people served by the snack bar (Jews), he did not have to follow their dietary rules when eating there. Quebec law insists that signs, menus and services are always in French. Since I do not belong to the French group of people, why should my "right to privacy" be overrun and I be forced to give menus and services in that language? Should I, too, sue for discrimination?

Verreault had other options for restitution. He could have diplomatically lodged a formal complaint with the hospital. He could have requested that a sign be posted, in addition to the kosher warning on the snack bar's door, directing those wishing to eat non-kosher food to do so in a specified place. If he was not satisfied still, he could have pursued the matter with the hospital board.

But Yvon Verreault didn't want the matter settled amicably, or in a way that would benefit other non-kosher visitors to the hospital. By encouraging the hospital to post a new sign, Verreault would help everyone; by suing, he helped himself.

The hospital payout was $10,000, plus enormous legal fees. What if this financial drain caused the hospital to put off buying a new defibrillator, or postpone an emergency liver transplant?

Verreault decided that it wasn't in his best interest to lift his chin, walk out of the snack bar with dignity and handle the matter behind closed doors, in a discreet manner. It was his decision to counter-humiliate the Jewish General Hospital, by dragging this matter through a public court. It is a lesser person who reflexively uses the law as a means for public lashings. They are unsatisfied with a compromise, negotiation, or amicable result. Resolution through the court is emblematic of a person's willingness to throw stones, rather than have the stones to handle the situation on his own.

One is left to wonder about the rationale behind the court's decision. How did the commission decide that someone has the "right to privacy" to eat their own food at a public restaurant? There are a lot of selfish people who sue whenever they're unsatisfied. The council has a responsibility to weed out bad cases. This irresponsible legal precedent will now ripple to other areas. It leaves every snack bar or cafeteria, kosher or not, at risk to people who willingly snub the regulations. Restaurateurs will now be afraid to ask people who have brought in outside food to pack it up, for fear of financial and legal consequences.

Verreault may indeed have felt shamed and stripped of his dignity when asked to leave the snack bar. But the simple compassion Verreault wanted accorded to him is the same compassion he ought to have accorded to the hospital. By suing the hospital, he showed that he wanted to exploit the law to win some money. And he got it. If he was more interested in obtaining a special place for people to eat non-kosher food in the hospital, there were better ways to accomplish this. Verreault should now give back the awarded money as a donation to the hospital.

Dave Gordon is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, N.Y. His website is DaveGordonWrites.com.

^TOP