It’s one of those things that generally goes without saying: there’s never a situation where it’s appropriate to drop your pants in public, take a dump on the floor, and then pick your feces up and throw it at other people.

No matter where we are on the political spectrum, however we may disagree about whether you should make your guests remove their shoes in your house, no matter whether we hear “Laurel” or “Yanni,” we’re all pretty much on the same side of the poop-flinging issue.

And so, when a security video went viral on Thursday, shot in a British Columbia Tim Hortons, showing an enraged woman doing her business on the floor in front of the order counter and then flinging the resulting mess at a staff member, everyone pretty much reacted the same. Shocked. Grossed out. Sort of disbelieving.

(Us too. The Star has decided not to embed the video on our website or link to it — Google is easy to use if you need to see it to believe it.)

Share your thoughts

I’m no contrarian on this. Do not poop on the floor. No matter where you poop, don’t fling it at people. Please.

Yet, reading a report that the events leading up to the video footage began when, according to Newsweek, the woman was told she could not use the public washroom, a further emotion does occur. Not sympathy, exactly, and certainly not justification. But a tiny bit of empathy for the underlying frustration that might have led this particular person into an inexcusable meltdown.

Who among us has not faced a washroom emergency and been told by someone that we cannot use the perfectly good one a few feet away? “This washroom for customers only.” It’s a sign — or a statement made by staff to your pleading, desperate face — that indicates an ice-cold indifference towards fellow human beings.

No business open to the public, and hoping to do business with the public, should have a policy like that. It forces indignity upon paying customers, insults and alienates potential customers, and displays zero empathy with those desperate souls in danger of soiling themselves who cannot become customers because they don’t have any money on them.

I mean, I get the reason it occurs to those who operate restaurants to implement a policy like that. I used to run a coffee and sandwich joint on Yonge St. All kinds of people would come in and take advantage of the space we were paying rent on, use our toilet paper, leave the floor a mess, without giving us a cent or even saying thank you.

Some people will take advantage of you. It’s true. It is frustrating.

But who wants to react to that by inflicting unnecessary discomfort and humiliation on other people? Further, who wants to advertise themselves to the paying public that way?

A restaurant with an “ask for the key” policy forces indignity even onto their paying customers, making them ask permission to use the washroom, like a student in kindergarten.

Furthermore, big chain restaurants — especially fast-food and coffee specialists — exist in a world where virtually the entire population is a customer, or very well could be, on a regular basis. I spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a year at Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Tim Hortons locations. If my kid needs to pee while I’m walking past one, am I suddenly less of a customer, less worthy of respect, because I finished my coffee a few hours earlier?

I had never encountered a locked-washroom Starbucks, long thinking they were fairly enlightened on the bathroom-use question (as most locations seem to be, and as most Tim Hortons and McDonald’s locations seem to be). Then I was in a location in Boston where, after spending more than $50 on drinks and snacks for my whole family, and sitting and consuming them there, the barista first told me I could not use the washroom because I was not a customer, then gave me the third degree and asked to see my receipt before giving me the code to the combination lock. It was humiliating. Enough to spoil my previously mostly positive impression of the whole chain.

Read more: After racist incident, Starbucks accepts what it really is — a public bathroom for all to use

A far more serious example of the result of this kind of policy emerged after a Black man ask to use the washroom at a Starbucks in Philadelphia on April 12. After being denied access, he was waiting at a table with a friend for another friend to arrive when they were arrested. The episode became a widely known example of everyday racism — why would a staff member call the police on these men? — and, at long last, led Starbucks to adopt an “open washroom” policy, as part of its attempt to make amends.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Perhaps it is because I walk around in the body of a man equipped with a bladder the size of a hamster’s. Perhaps it is because I am often accompanied by three small children. But I have a lot of sympathy for those who need to use the washroom badly enough to seek one out, especially in Toronto where genuinely public washrooms are scarce. I cannot imagine telling someone in such circumstances to take a hike.

When I do pop in somewhere to use a washroom, my own sense of fairness dictates that I always do buy something — a coffee or a pack of gum, at least. I’m lucky enough to have progressed into financial circumstances in which I always can buy something. But not everyone has the scratch, even though nature sends us all the itch.

Open washrooms just seem like a good policy for a business hoping to serve its existing customers and advertise itself a as a welcoming place to possible new ones. They also prevent some humiliating accidents and a whole lot of discomfort.

And if such a policy can head off even one drawer-dropping, squat-popping, poop-flinging rage, well, then everyone comes out ahead.

Read more about: