Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Discuss political news items / current events.
Post Reply
Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

B-16 is a Federal bill that would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... Id=8280564
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

I've been asked by a few people to give a more detailed post as to the implications of Bill C-16, which passed a few readings in Parliament. I'll add additional posts as news and information about the topic becomes avaiable, but for this main post, I'll leave it as a basic overview of what the bill entails. Very few MP's are actually fighting this bill and the way it looks now, it should pass the next few readings, the senate and then probably become law sometime in late 2016/early 2017. Some of the wording in the bill is extremely vague and very open to interpretation, probably on purpose so to enlarge the scope of who could be charged with a hate crime.

Canada is part of the land that the Lord called choice and all those that live on this land must serve Him.
Ether 13:2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;
If this bill passes, it means going forward, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could possibly not be allowed to teach a lesson about Gender and Eternal Identity in a public setting like sacrament, seminary, institute or missionary discussions without the threat of being prosecuted as the views taught would be against the law and considered hate speech. There is currently no religious protection in the bill and it unclear how the courts would interpret the bill in regards to Freedom of Religion or how it applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Our gender was established before we were born into mortality and is an essential characteristic of our eternal identity.
https://www.lds.org/manual/the-eternal- ... y?lang=eng
C-16 just advances a malign political agenda. It gives sexual anarchists a powerful weapon to destroy our right to freedom of speech: if you disagree with the politically correct agenda, you’d better not say so or you will face serious legal consequences.

What this bill will change:
  • This bill will take away the free speech right for people to say that gender identity and gender expression are wrong and would now be classed as a discriminatory hate crime.
  • This bill would allow anyone who identifies with the opposite biological gender of birth to enter a public washroom opposite to their biological gender.
  • Freedom of the press weakened.
  • Freedom of association weakened.
  • Freedom of speech weakened.
  • Freedom of religion weakened.
What this bill could also be interpreted as changing (matters the courts will eventually have to determine):
  • In combination with provincial laws, force people to address others with gender neutral pronouns.
  • Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia as government recognized mental illnesses. (Is it a mental illness or a hate crime or both?)
This bill goes far beyond equal rights into the territory of granting extra rights or special rights for some; and in the process of granting those extra rights for some, we automatically diminish and deny the legitimate time-honoured rights of many others.

For me and the millions of other Canadians who acknowledge the supremacy of God, as the first words of our charter affirm, there is the reality that our faith journey is the foundation of our world view. If freedom of religion is to be embraced, then it is of paramount importance that Bill C-16 not infringe upon that fundamental freedom. It is important that government clarify the nature of the protection being afforded and how it expects terms such as gender identity and gender expression to be interpreted. The implications are too unpredictable. Far too much is left to interpretation that would result in unnecessary accusation of human rights violations as well as litigation and endless court cases to further tie up our court system.

Harold Albrecht
Conservative MP for Kitchener—Conestoga (Ontario)
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2016/ ... lbrecht-2/
Women's rest rooms and locker rooms are traditionally family changing rooms. By passing the bill, are we then be saying that a person's need to express his or her gender or identity foreshadows the mother's need to also protect her child from seeing a naked man at, let us say, a YMCA children's swim class? Have we really gone this far in our society? Is this really where the majority of Canadians want to evolve or aspire to?

Cathay Wagantall
Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville (Saskatchewan)
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2016/ ... gantall-2/
What’s Wrong With Bill C-16?
Wed, May 18, 2016 | Author: Ron Gray | The Christian Heritage Party of Canada
May 17, on “International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia”, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-16—draft legislation to grant full civil rights to transgendered persons. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Have we lost our minds?

What problem is this solving? Were there any reports of biologically female persons (who thought they were male) being molested in the women’s washroom?

No.

Were there any reports of biologically male persons (who thought they were female) being molested in the men’s room?

No.

But since the campaign for bathroom rights for transgenders went into high gear, we’ve already read reports of women being confronted in the women’s lavatory by males who say they have a legal right to be there—and one case of a man who assaulted an 8-year-old girl in the women’s washroom. He had the ‘right’ to be there.

After a half-century of progress on women’s rights, we’re now told by Prime Minister Trudeau that those rights—at least, the privacy rights of 51% of the population—are to be trumped by the alleged ‘rights’ of a mere 0.25% of the population—people who are biologically of one sex, but who think they are the opposite sex.

Instead of offering counselling and therapy to that one-quarter-of-one percent, our federal government wants to mandate that they have a right to go into facilities that match whatever gender they erroneously think is theirs.
https://www.chp.ca/commentary/whats-wro ... -bill-c-16
Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Psychology professor at the University of Toronto, has publicly refused to use gender-neutral pronouns, claiming that it's a matter of free speech. He argues choice of personal pronouns when addressing someone is a matter of freedom of speech. He believes that this bill C-16 will actually go a lot farther than the media and government are saying in regards to free speech.
He took issue both with Bill C-16, federal legislation that would change the Canadian Human Rights Code and Criminal Code, making discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression illegal, and with the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of “gender identity,” which is described as a person’s “sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum.”

“I don’t believe that it’s intelligent and appropriate for the government to mandate the words that its citizens should speak,” Peterson said.

“It’s one thing to tell people that there’s certain words they can’t say, but it’s an entirely different thing to tell them there are words that they have to say.”

The University of Toronto has since agreed to host a debate with Peterson, although details are not yet available. Media relations director Althea Blackburn-Evans said Peterson “has the right to express his views,” but that faculty members “also have responsibilities to create a learning environment at the University of Toronto that’s free from discrimination.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/1 ... clash.html

University of Toronto Tenured Professor Jordan Peterson has basically been threatened to be fired from his job for refusing to use Gender Neutral Pronouns in all his upcoming posts, lectures and debates because the University would be liable for what he says as their employee.

The University is obvious running scared over this issue and the contention it would bring it they had to legally fight it against the Ontario government and then eventually as a Charter of Rights and Freedoms free speech issue. The way they are acting already leads most to believe its a fight they actually wouldn't win.

This all boils down to a Bill attempting to be passed in Federal Parliament: C-16. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, MP for Vancouver Granville and introduced Bill C-16 on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, May 17th, 2016, a day listing a bunch of made up phobia's to make everyone seem politically incorrect. The bill would update the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include the terms gender identity and gender expression.

http://www.straight.com/life/699766/jus ... ights-bill

This has become a very big issue in Canada, especially in Ontario. I've said multiple times, that Canada is about 5 years ahead of the 'social curve' than the United States is but I think in recent years that gap is becoming smaller, perhaps only a couple years ahead now.

Some of the highlights from his video that I found very interesting:
  • Kathleen Wynne Premier of Ontario is attempting to make a social misunderstanding for not using Gender Neutral Pronouns a sexual assault equivalent to rape.
  • Jordan Peterson has been trolled online after posting his lectures because people believe that he sounds like Kermit the Frog. Most people identify Kermits personality as a strong willed and a good leader so Jordan doesn't take offense to that. Native Charles Joseph, a brother of Jordan, made a frog mask for him. He believes that it is synchronicity that these two link especially since the significance of the frog in Kwakwaka'wakw mythology is that it is a harbinger of danger. If anything pollutes the waters, the frogs die which actually did happen all around the world the past few years. Jordan believes that a pollutant is going through our society and we need to clean it up or there is going to be trouble.
  • The professor sent a letter to the University Dean explaining his decision and finished it off by saying: "Make your decision. I have made mine. May God Himself help us live with the consequences."
This whole issue reminds me of a clip I saw with Jerry Seinfeld talking about Political Correctness and how it has a very creepy side effect. Comedians have already been under attack here in Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.1021605
Troublesome times ahead for sure!
Last edited by Sunain on May 18th, 2017, 5:09 pm, edited 14 times in total.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Looks like the government is now trying to get this bill passed before the end of 2016.
Trans-rights protection bill fast-tracked through House committee
Senate could debate proposal before Christmas break

Published on Mon, Nov 7, 2016 7:32 pm.
http://www.dailyxtra.com/canada/news-an ... tee-209789" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Senate will soon debate the latest version of a bill to encode trans people in Canada’s human-rights and hate-speech laws — a proposal the red chamber had gutted and delayed during past similar bills.

Introduced in May 2016, Bill C-16 would add both gender identity and expression to Canada’s anti-discrimination laws, and would let judges deem attacks against trans people as an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing.

On Oct 18, the bill had its first heated parliamentary debate and passed a second reading with unanimous support from the Liberals and NDP, after almost four hours of deliberation. During the House discussion, MPs warned that Bill C-16 “gives unfair advantage” to trans people, would “legislate ideological conformity” and allow “perverts” into washrooms.

On Oct 27, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould spoke to the House of Commons justice committee. She said she’d push the Senate to pass the bill, meeting senators individually or at their committees, “to provide any background evidence and studies they would require in making their determination.”

On Nov 3, Bill C-16 faced 15 minutes of clause-by-clause study. The federal Liberals fast-tracked the bill’s committee phase to just 2.5 hours, drawing a mix of praise and criticism.

Conservative members of Parliament on the committee quoted statements from politicians and legal experts, saying trans people are already protected under existing codes that outlaw gender discrimination. Wilson-Raybould countered that Bill C-16 was needed, “to make the law clear” for trans people.

“This was pretty much a no-brainer,” Wilson-Raybould told her colleagues.

However, the justice minister did not answer questions about how the Liberals will introduce legislation to accommodate trans and non-binary people in passports and in prisons, or whether they will compel police forces to log data on incidents involving trans people.

On Nov 3, Bill C-16 was passed with no amendments, with just one of the 10 committee members voting opposed: Conservative MP Ted Falk.

Falk, who represents the southeast Manitoba riding of Provencher, decried the committee for hosting no witnesses other than the justice minister and department officials.

“Do we really know if this bill will have an impact on free speech? No, we don’t,” Falk said, adding that the committee hasn’t studied “explicit safeguards” for “immigrant and religious groups, who have some deeply held convictions with respect to human sexuality.”

Falk said the bill could cause logistical issues, giving the example of male athletes applying for women’s athletic scholarships. But Liberal MP Anthony Housefather rebutted that concern, noting that the International Olympic Committee uses a hormone-level test to decide who can compete in women’s sports.

User avatar
mes5464
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 29570
Location: Seneca, South Carolina

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by mes5464 »

Thank you Sunain.

Spider
captain of 100
Posts: 242

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Spider »

Wow!

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Canadian gender-neutral pronoun bill is a warning for Americans
By Jordan B Peterson, contributor - 10/18/16 06:20 PM EDT
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/c ... -and-has-a

If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.

Without free speech, we cannot explore our ever-transforming territories, orient ourselves, and get to the point. Without freedom of speech, we will not talk — and we will not think. And then we will have real conflict, with all of its horrors, instead of its abstracted equivalent.

Bill C-16, and its legislative sisters, are particularly insidious constructions.

Free speech is so fundamentally important that restricting it in any manner carries serious risk. Nonetheless, we shouldn’t be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Sensible people can also debate the control of hatred (although hate speech laws present a significant danger themselves).

There is, however, a crucial difference between laws that stop people from saying arguably dangerous words and laws that mandate the use of politically-approved words and phrases. We have never had laws of the latter sort before, not in our countries. This is no time to start.

So, a note from a Canadian friend. The citizens of your great country, and ours — and of our allies across the Western world — are at risk.
Last edited by Sunain on June 16th, 2017, 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by David13 »

Yeah, I have been familiar with this law and this case for some time now.
Wow, we think our country is screwed up. Take a look at this preposterous northern insanity.
dc

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Widdowson: Universities are letting free speech crumble – and they shouldn't
Frances Widdowson
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/column ... y-shouldnt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Published on: November 25, 2016 | Last Updated: November 25, 2016 4:00 PM EST

Last weekend, the University of Toronto undertook what should be the norm in all academic environments: it held a debate on a controversial subject. The debate concerned including “gender identity” and “gender expression” in Canadian legislation, and, more specifically, whether or not professors, or any citizen for that matter, should be compelled to use made-up, gender-neutral pronouns.

Arguing against compelled speech was Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, who maintained that this reflected an ideologically pernicious and scientifically invalid attempt to control thought. Peterson’s position was contested by Brenda Cossman, a law professor at the same university and director of the Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies; and Mary Bryson, an education professor at the University of British Columbia. Peterson’s opponents essentially argued that compelled speech was justified if it helped to reduce inequality and show respect and compassion for marginalized groups.

Although the event proceeded as planned, and was not disrupted by the pulling of fire alarms or other manifestations of the heckler’s veto, the threat to Peterson’s academic career continues. Take, for example, Mary Bryson’s comment during the debate that much of what Peterson asserted constituted “hate propaganda.” If this assessment of Peterson’s position is accepted, he could suffer reprisals for future utterances.

While the events of the past month should concern any supporter of free speech, perhaps the most disturbing element of this controversy so far is the fact that so few academics have publicly supported Peterson.

It is both a right and a duty for a professor to pursue and disseminate what he or she perceives to be the truth. This is what Peterson is doing, and all of his colleagues should appreciate his principled stance even if they disagree with what he says.

More than 100 years ago, the philosopher John Stuart Mill provided two of the best reasons for why Peterson should be supported in his struggle. The first is that Peterson’s arguments could be true. This is a distinct possibility because of the political climate in which trans issues are currently discussed. There is a reluctance to question the arguments of the “positive space” lobby, and such groupthink often leads to poorly thought out arguments. The second reason is that, even if Peterson’s arguments are wrong, they can teach us a great deal about what makes an idea valid. Therefore, they should be continuously and systematically examined to understand how they are flawed, so that a closer approximation of the truth can be reached.

The people trying to silence Peterson have made up their minds, and they don’t want to listen to viewpoints that would challenge their own. This is due to their own intellectual insecurity and the disturbing possibility that they might have to change their minds if convincing evidence were presented to them in refutation. Instead of being intellectually honest, they are trying to impose censorship on all members of society because, as advocates, they don’t want to deal with the consequences of being wrong. This anti-intellectualism is completely inconsistent with what a university is supposed to be about.

While apathy and careerism have always impeded the university’s academic mission, there is another reason professors might not be coming to Peterson’s defence. This is the enactment of “hate speech” legislation and the Supreme Court of Canada’s prohibition on claims that are “likely to expose” groups to “detestation or vilification.” In this area of law, truth is not a defence, as factual claims could provoke hostility toward marginalized groups and justify discrimination.

This assault on the pursuit of the truth has been given additional impetus by the acceptance of postmodern relativism in many areas of universities. Trying to determine what is true is no longer valued by many professors because “knowledge” is perceived to be whatever an oppressed group happens to believe.

While the Peterson affair has focused our attention on one particular instance of how academic inquiry is being constrained by ideologically inspired authoritarianism, the problem lies much deeper. Universities have lost their way and no longer see the pursuit of truth as their telos. The preoccupation with providing emotional gratification to groups perceived to be oppressed is taking precedence over academic considerations. This infantilizes these groups and prevents us, as the great social scientist W.E.B. Du Bois pointed out many decades ago, from “establish(ing) the Truth, on which Right in the future may be built.”

Frances Widdowson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Justice and Policy Studies at Mount Royal University. She is the Coordinator, Membership Outreach, of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (http://www.safs.ca" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

For those that want to know a lot more about this issue and a lot of the issues currently going on in Canada, an interview with Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. It's directly related to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom in general. It's a long video
The 54 minute mark really is a great point in the interview. He really explains how Satan works (though he doesn't actually say that). Encroach a little at a time, change a little at a time and eventually the goal is achieved.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Professor Peterson was invited to speak at McMaster University, one of Canada's largest institutions for higher learning but he was unable to give his speech because students made so much noise that no one could hear him. Relevant clip at 50m:21s mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTjFGIX ... e&t=50m21s

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

I served as a witness at the Canadian Senate yesterday, regarding Bill C16, which adds the ill-defined categories of gender expression and gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Federal government, in a website which has since been taken down, stated clearly that this legislation would be interpreted in keeping with the policies of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which I regard as one of the most dangerous institutions in Canada, in relationship to all rights other than those of "equality," including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. I was partnered with lawyer Jared Brown, whose courageous and detailed analysis of Bill C16 can be found here: https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/201 ... -big-deal/
which amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
Jordan B Peterson
This is a must watch video for those that want to know exactly what is going on regarding this issue in Canada. The media and the government want the citizens of Canada to believe that this is a humans rights issue, an equality issue and fairness issue. Mr. Peterson seemed very nervous but he was able to speak soundly and clearly. He presented his arguments and evidences extremely well and rebuttals were clear and to the point. It seems as though this law will pass because similar law have already passed in most the provinces. The Trudeau Liberal government has a majority and can therefore pass this law without opposition. The article below is just to give you an idea of how the media's is discussing this issue.

I feel as though this is how the prophets of old fought. They taught correct principles and showed evidence but the governments of the land disregarded it, leading down a path of more wickedness and freedoms removed.

If Canada Really Believes In Equality, Bill C-16 Must Pass
Our government has a duty to protect the human rights of all people. Laws that seek to enshrine those rights and protect us from discrimination should be considered without hesitation.

If enacted into law, Bill C-16 will protect some of the most marginalized people in Canada and so, it is with all our might that we need to support its passing. If Canada really believes in equality, this bill must pass.

Like its precursor (Private Member's Bill C-279), which died a long and painful death last year by way of amendments, Bill C-16 is a critical step in recognizing that trans rights are human rights. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Under the Criminal Code, it would protect against crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

What we need to face right now is the fact that transphobic rhetoric is being spewed while trans people in Canada are still not legally protected from discrimination and abuse from the state, institutions and individuals.

Bill C-16, now in its sixth parliamentary incarnation since 2005, needs to safely pass through the Senate, as is, and receive royal assent before Parliament rises for the summer in three weeks. If Bill C-16 doesn't pass before June 23, we could find ourselves back to square one in the Senate and lose yet another year -- another year in which the human rights of trans people are not protected. This bill is more than a symbolic nod; it will mean tangible protections to a community that faces discrimination and disproportionate rates of violence.

With only three weeks left to pass Bill C-16, we all need to speak up in favour equal rights. The safety and well-being of tens of thousands of people demands it. Now is the time to be vigilant, watchful and, most of all, supportive of our trans friends, neighbors, and communities.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

C-16 (42-1) - Third Reading - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
BILL C-16
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
November 18, 2016

90796


SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca


1st Session, 42nd Parliament,
64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
BILL C-16
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
R.‍S.‍, c. H-6

Canadian Human Rights Act

1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code
2014, c. 31, s. 12
3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
1995, c. 22, s. 6
4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42 ... rd-reading
Above is the proposed amendments. They are so vague and the way the law works here, human rights tribunals can interpret this law. This law is absolutely nutty and its going to be passed here in Canada shortly now that the Senate review is coming to an end. No one here for the church or other religious organization are even discussing it publically or with the members like it did with Same Sex Marriage. It's like because we lost that battle and it became law, that there is no point trying for a law like this. The way the law is worded now, we only have to be BIAS and a sentence will be given; "bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." Well I'm definitely bias when it comes to gender identity or expression.
Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1?lang=eng
There is only male and female. There is no such thing as gender-neutral in the biology of humans. It's only going to be a matter of time after this law is passed until someone brings a lawsuit against religious people that believe that you are born a specific gender at birth and that male and female are the only two genders a human can be. This whole "non-binary" issue is ridiculous.

Same-sex marriage passed here in Canada first before the United States, so it won't be much longer till this issue comes up in the United States. It may take until the next Democratic Government though, so as the pattern goes, Canada is always a couple years ahead of the USA.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Jordan B Peterson
@jordanbpeterson
Senate passes Bill C16 without amendment 67 for 11 against. Compelled speech has come to Canada. We will seriously regret this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeter ... 7920022528
Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
Great news: Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove
8:53 PM - 15 Jun 2017
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/statu ... 3758986240
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." Padmé Amidala

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Thinker »

Sunain wrote: June 16th, 2017, 8:53 am
Jordan B Peterson
@jordanbpeterson
Senate passes Bill C16 without amendment 67 for 11 against. Compelled speech has come to Canada. We will seriously regret this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeter ... 7920022528
Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
Great news: Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove
8:53 PM - 15 Jun 2017
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/statu ... 3758986240
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." Padmé Amidala
People who are so eager to silence others through tyrannical laws like this don’t realize it will soon come back to bite them.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

This happened in the UK but since Canada is part of the commonwealth and the Queen is the head of state, without C-16 being changed, this could happen here too.

Christian doctor loses trans beliefs case
A doctor who refused to use transgender pronouns as people's chosen sex as it went against his Christian faith has lost his tribunal.

Disability assessor Dr David Mackereth, from Dudley, West Midlands, claimed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) breached his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

But a panel ruled his biblical view of what it is to be male and female was "incompatible with human dignity."

Dr Mackereth said he intends to appeal.

The hearing was told he would refuse to refer to "any 6ft-tall bearded man" as "madam" following a conversation with a manager at an assessment centre and later left his role.

The tribunal panel - sitting in Birmingham - found the DWP had not breached the Equality Act. It stated there was no contravention and dismissed the complaints.

'Deeply concerned'

"A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others," the judgement said.

Dr Mackereth, 56, said he was "deeply concerned" by the ruling.

"Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended," he said.

"I believe that I have to appeal in order to fight for the freedom of Christians to speak the truth. If they cannot, then freedom of speech has died in this country, with serious ramifications for the practise of medicine in the UK."

Andrea Williams, the chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said if the decision is upheld it will have "seismic consequences" for anyone in the workplace "who is prepared to believe and say that we are created male and female".

"It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech," she added.

A DWP spokeswoman said: "We acted to protect claimants from behaviour that would have failed to treat them with dignity, so we welcome this ruling. We expect all assessors to approach their work sensitively."

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by Sunain »

Canadian tribunal fines Bill Whatcott $55,000 for expressing Christian views on “transgenderism”
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined Christian activist Bill Whatcott $55,000 for the crime of "mis-gendering." They ordered him to “refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention.”

Bill Whatcott was convicted of “mis-gendering” – telling people that a male wearing women’s clothes is actually a male, not a female. You read this correctly. This is how insane things have become in Canada. But the Tribunal declared that Whatcott’s (true) statements caused injury to the cross-dressing man’s “dignity, feelings, and self-respect,” and therefore Whatcott must be punished. The Tribunal noted that truth is no defense.

In Canada this irrational “gender” ideology now overrules everything. In the 104-page ruling (see below) the Tribunal judge freely admitted that this decision limits Whatcott’s religious freedom and freedom of expression:

There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion… While Mr. Whatcott would remain free to hold his beliefs about transgender people, he would be limited in the manner in which he could spread those views to the general public… There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally. (Sections 75-77)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “freedom of expression” is necessary for society’s “search for truth.” But there is no longer a need for society to search for truth. The Tribunal has declared what truth is.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Bill C-16 - UoT Tenured Professor fighting for Free Speech in Canada

Post by David13 »

This is some of the sickest, sick in the head stuff I could imagine.

What pathetic nonsense.

I guess Canada has no sense of free speech whatsoever.

Here in the USA we seem to have some vague idea of it from the Constitution.
dc

Post Reply