PDA

View Full Version : Canada - worse than Seatte: New LAW -Wrong gender pronoun = hate crime.



darin
06-28-2017, 02:10 AM
Canada is turning into bullshit. Canada needs a revolution. Canada needs its remaining GOOD people to storm the election booths and vote-out this morally bankrupt FOOLS who approve laws like this.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/



Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.
Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-canada-passes-radical-law-forcing-gender-theory-acceptance). The bill now only needs royal assen (https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/)t from the governor general. (http://library.law.utoronto.ca/step-2-primary-sources-law-canadian-legislation)
“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

This is unconscionable. This is what Fascism looks like. This is anti-freedom.

revelarts
06-28-2017, 06:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg


I Was in the Room While Jordan Peterson and Senators Debated My Human Rights
Canadian trans rights legislation passed another hurdle this week. Bill C-16 now heads to a third and final vote in the Senate.Torontoist
I Was in the Room While Jordan Peterson and Senators Debated My Human Rights (http://torontoist.com/2017/05/room-jordan-peterson-senators-debated-human-rights/)

VICE- Canada’s transgender rights bill could become law before the Summer, despite some controversial opponents
https://news.vice.com/story/jordan-p...-in-the-senate (https://news.vice.com/story/jordan-peterson-testifies-against-bill-c-16-in-the-senate)

If Canada Really Believes In Equality, Bill C-16 Must Pass
If Canada Really Believes In Equality, Bill C-16 Must Pass (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sandeep-prasad/bill-c-16-equality_b_16655338.html)


BUT IT WLL NEVER HAPPEN HERE...

NEW YORK CITY

"...III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION....
....1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun....
...Examples of Violations
Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.
Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.
Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11
Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.....

....IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
The severity of the particular violation;
The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.
These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies...."
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/l...xpression.page (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page)

revelarts
06-28-2017, 07:11 AM
U.K.

Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says* (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/)

Don't call pregnant women 'expectant mothers' as it might offend transgender people, BMA says
29 January 2017
The British Medical Association has said pregnant women should not be called "expectant mothers" as it could offend transgender people. Instead, they should call them "pregnant people" so as not to upset intersex and transgender men, the union has said. The advice comes in an internal document to staff outlining a raft of common phrases that should be avoided for fear of causing offense.
[he British Medical Association has said pregnant women should not be called "expectant mothers" as it could offend transgender people. Instead, they should call them "pregnant people" so as not to upset intersex and transgender men, the union has said. The advice comes in an internal document to staff outlining a raft of common phrases that should be avoided for fear of causing offense....

darin
06-28-2017, 07:15 AM
makes my blood boil :(

pete311
06-28-2017, 08:51 AM
Get over it snowflake. Getting in a tizzy over nothing.

darin
06-28-2017, 08:57 AM
Get over it snowflake. Getting in a tizzy over nothing.

....I wonder if you'd say the same thing if the Government mandated use of the words "Nigger" or "spick" or "gook".

pete311
06-28-2017, 09:00 AM
....I wonder if you'd say the same thing if the Government mandated use of the words "Nigger" or "spick" or "gook".

I'm sure I'm missing something, but how is using the wrong pronoun a hate crime when the bill is about "making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression"

darin
06-28-2017, 09:02 AM
I'm sure I'm missing something, but how is using the wrong pronoun a hate crime when the bill is about "making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression"

They are compelling language. Compelling speech. Of course there is a slippery slope - when the government mandates speech there is no end to is over-reach. Their law makes use of the 'wrong' pronoun end -ultimately - in jail.

pete311
06-28-2017, 09:12 AM
They are compelling language. Compelling speech. Of course there is a slippery slope - when the government mandates speech there is no end to is over-reach. Their law makes use of the 'wrong' pronoun end -ultimately - in jail.

How is using the wrong pronoun discrimination?

revelarts
06-28-2017, 10:55 AM
How is using the wrong pronoun discrimination?
I 'm not sure HOW they are defining it as "discrimination" but they are.
It's considered Illegal "HATE SPEECH".


An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

Sponsor
Jody Wilson-Raybould (https://openparliament.ca/politicians/jody-wilson-raybould/) Liberal

Status
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C16&Parl=42&Ses=1)often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C16&Parl=42&Ses=1), provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill (http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=9065712).

"...aggravating circumstance..." that's an apt choice of words.

pete311
06-28-2017, 11:12 AM
I 'm not sure HOW they are defining it as "discrimination" but they are.
It's considered Illegal "HATE SPEECH".



"...aggravating circumstance..." that's an apt choice of words.

You can use the wrong pronoun yet not be "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate"

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill

revelarts
06-28-2017, 11:37 AM
You can use the wrong pronoun yet not be "motivated by bias, prejudice or hate"
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill

That's where the lawyers and judges application of the law comes into play Pete.
Your ASSUPTION of what MOTIVATING someone to use the pronoun made be more generous than others.
(And WHY is a pronoun Offensive in the 1st place exactly? Any way to walk that back?)

But while it was still a bill one legislator proposed to add this amendment to Bill C-16:
“For greater certainty, nothing in this Act requires the use of a particular word or expression that corresponds to the gender identity or expression of any person."

it was voted down and he got hate mail and hate tweets for even suggesting it.

So yes "pronoun" use is on the table as an indicator of "bias, prejudice or hate" or as a possible crime itself with this OPEN version of the law.

pete311
06-28-2017, 11:41 AM
That's where the lawyers and judges application of the law comes into play Pete.
Your ASSUPTION of what MOTIVATING someone to use the pronoun made be more generous than others.
(And WHY is a pronoun Offensive in the 1st place exactly? Any way to walk that back?)

But while it was still a bill one legislator proposed to add this amendment to Bill C-16:
“For greater certainty, nothing in this Act requires the use of a particular word or expression that corresponds to the gender identity or expression of any person."

it was voted down and he got hate mail and hate tweets for even suggesting it.

So yes "pronoun" use is on the table as an indicator of "bias, prejudice or hate" or as a possible crime itself with this OPEN version of the law.

snore, wake me up when someone actually is arrested for pronoun misuse.

revelarts
06-29-2017, 09:00 AM
snore, wake me up when someone actually is arrested for pronoun misuse.

you mean like people being fined and arrested for not helping in homosexual weddings would never happen.
you mean like people should have slept because homosexual marriage would never be the law of the land.

you mean that LBGTXYZs are not the most litigious "protected class" in the world.

you go ahead and go to sleep Pete, I suspect you're ready to bark whatever Pronouns the gov't mandates you use on command anyway. So no worries since you'll zieg heil for them just fine.
The rest of us that think it's CRAZY Talk will stay awake on this one.

for those still awake, here's a Canadain lawyer outlining real life the path to prison for improper pronoun use in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbqCHPB9jg

Gunny
06-29-2017, 04:38 PM
Henceforth, all persons shall be referred to as "fuckwit". Problem solved.

Black Diamond
06-29-2017, 04:51 PM
Henceforth, all persons shall be referred to as "fuckwit". Problem solved.
about time you start using that term again.

Gunny
06-30-2017, 09:11 PM
about time you start using that term again.I have grandkids around. Cussing doesn't come first to mind anymore. Plus I'm not on a certain board we all know and love that seems to breed fuckwits.