Skip to main content


Buy Article:

$32.45 plus tax (Refund Policy)


This article attempts to clarify the meaning of discrimination by dispelling the apparent attraction of what Macklem believes are false paths to its understanding, paths that pursue familiar and beguiling explanations such as stereotyping and denial of concern and respect, explanations that the Supreme Court has endorsed in Law.

Keywords: Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia; Canadian Law; Discrimination; Institute of Edible Oil Foods v Ontario; Oleomargarine Act; Stereotyping; Supreme Court

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: January 1, 2000

More about this publication?
  • Until 2007 the King's Law Journal was known as the King's College Law Journal. It was established in 1990 as a legal periodical publishing scholarly and authoritative Articles, Notes and Reports on legal issues of current importance to both academic research and legal practice. It has a national and international readership, and publishes refereed contributions from authors across the United Kingdom, from continental Europe and further afield (particularly Commonwealth countries and USA). The journal includes a Reviews section containing critical notices of recently published books.

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more