Navigating Theatre Accessibility and the 2007 Human Rights Commission Decision
Brace yourself, it's not the next "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but almost as epic! This post explores theatre accessibility and the 2007 decision by the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Your support in sharing this column is valuable in raising awareness.
The decision in question pertains to the case of Malkowski and Simser v. Alliance Atlantis Cinemas Partnership, AMC International Inc., Cineplex Entertainment LP, and Rainbow Centre Cinemas Inc., which was rendered by the Human Rights Commission of Ontario in 2007. During that period, theatres were in the process of transitioning from traditional film projectors to digital projectors, a conversion that was still ongoing. It's worth noting that the technology known as CaptiView, a form of closed captioning, was introduced later in 2010.
Before the availability of CaptiView, the closed captioning technology utilized was called Rear Window Captioning (RWC). This system involved the installation of displays on the rear wall of the theatre. To utilize this technology, moviegoers had to carry plexiglass panels attached to flexible stands, which were then inserted into cupholders. Eventually, CaptiView replaced this method, albeit still occupying the cupholder space. However, it's important to acknowledge that this particular decision did not seem to consider the evolving technological landscape during that time, now having been nearly sixteen years since the ruling.
From a personal standpoint, I perceive the decision as somewhat premature, potentially resulting in an imposition on our human rights by imposing limitations on our movie-watching experiences. It appears that the decision failed to account for the dynamic changes in technology that have occurred over the years.
To clarify, the open captioning technology I'm referring to is, in essence, a variant of closed captioning. Open captioning remains visible at all times and cannot be disabled, whereas the digital projectors allow for captioning to be enabled or disabled as desired. It's important to highlight that this option was unavailable with traditional film projectors; any open captioned screenings would have relied on film reels with embedded captions.
In summary, the digital projector functionality I've described aligns with a form of closed captioning. The crux of the issue lies in the fact that the earlier decision does not adequately reflect the advancements in technology that are now available. As time has progressed, the cinematic landscape has evolved considerably, rendering the decision outdated in light of current technological capabilities.
Regarding the ongoing situation involving Skyway Drive-In Theatre, I have not received any private communication from them on any occasion. Their sole response was in a public post where I tagged them. This singular message constitutes the extent of their communication with me. According to the guidelines, it appears that Skyway Drive-In Theatre may be in violation of their obligation under the Human Rights Code to ensure "reasonable access" to their services. Based on these circumstances, it seems that I indeed have a legitimate basis to file a complaint against the theatre for the treatment I experienced.
It's evident that Premier Theatres (Owner of Skyway Drive-In Theatre) might perceive themselves as an exception when it comes to providing accessible services. However, their practice of offering captioning for just one screening per month seems inadequate and difficult to consider as reasonable access. While they argue that such accommodations incur costs, it's essential to recognize that their approach to advertising and engagement could be contributing to the issue. Posting movie listings and subsequently adding a small note about a single captioned show the next day is not an effective way to communicate with the deaf and hard of hearing community. This approach is prone to being overlooked, which exacerbates the problem.
Premier Theatres needs to enhance their communication strategies significantly, particularly considering that approximately twenty percent of the population experiences some form of hearing loss. A considerable portion of this demographic requires accessible options to fully enjoy cinematic experiences. The situation is compounded by the fact that a significant majority of adults under the age of thirty rely on captions regularly. The current approach likely discourages those in need of access from attending movies altogether due to the perceived lack of suitable accommodations.
Given these circumstances, it would be prudent for the Human Rights Commission of Ontario to reevaluate their previous decision in light of the changing world we now inhabit. An update to their guidelines or directives could better reflect the realities of today, where advancements in technology and evolving social awareness have reshaped our expectations for accessibility and inclusivity.
That's a wrap, folks! If you made it through this column on theatre accessibility and the 2007 Human Rights Commission decision, you deserve an honourary standing ovation. Now go stretch those scrolling fingers – you've earned it!