Trans Rights in Canada


View Poll Results: Should discrimination for "gender identity" and "gender expression" be prohibite
YES 3 75.00%
NO 1 25.00%
Voters: 4. You may not vote on this poll

FiveParadox
Liberal
#1
Ms. Michelle Rempel M.P. ( Calgary Centre—North ), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment , just appeared to break down in tears as she offered remarks on Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression). I thought for a moment that she was about to break the dominant "bathroom bill" crap that Her Majesty's Government for Canada has been spewing en masse.

This debate is happening right now on CPAC.

As she got further into her remarks, though, it became clear that while she was speaking to the importance of the protection of transgendered and transsexual rights, she was simultaneously attempting to justify opposition to the bill by saying that enshrining rights in legislation is "symbolic," rather than direct social action. When I ask, however, has the Government of Canada—or even the Parliament of Canada —attempted to instigate direct social action in a case such as this?

The Question at Issue

The bill being debated right now, which was proposed by Mr. Randall Garrison M.P. ( Esquimalt—Juan-de-Fuca ), would extend the protections of the Canada Human Rights Act to transgender and transsexual Canadians. Currently, trans rights are not explicitly mentioned in Canadian human rights legislation. Gender identity and gender expression would be added to the Act.

Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have been quick to dub this the "bathroom bill," and have raised outrageous accusations that non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression would be harmful to children, and that it would open the door for criminals to prey on children in public washrooms. The Conservatives' statements in respect of this bill have suggested that transgender and transsexual Canadians are not to be trusted.

(The debate is continuing on CPAC; I will link to the Hansard as soon as it has been uploaded.)
( Bill C-279 )
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#2
Ok.

Out comes the redneck in me....

There are TWO genders.........male and female.

There are VERY occasionally naturally occurring births of people with both sex organs, or with extra chromonsones, but they are an anomally.



If you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body, you probably REALLY need a doctor.

A psychiatrist, NOT a surgeon.

The idea that "transgendered" should be accorded the human right to invade the privacy of normal human beings is insane.

It is roughly the equivalent of passing a law forcing the people to treat the delusions of schizophrenics as reality.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+3
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ok.

It is roughly the equivalent of passing a law forcing the people to treat the delusions of schizophrenics as reality.

To a schizophrenic, they are real and who really knows what is real and what isn't? Is anything deemed real to the bulk of society the yard stick by which we have to measure reality? It may be that we are delusional about what is real - mass hysteria.

What I find interesting is that the Charter of Rights needs to spell out every variant in human behaviour. It is supposed to give everybody equal rights. By designating certain groups within the wording, does it automatically mean that those not mentioned don't have equal rights? Either everybody has equal rights or nobody does.
 
gerryh
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ok.

Out comes the redneck in me....

There are TWO genders.........male and female.

There are VERY occasionally naturally occurring births of people with both sex organs, or with extra chromonsones, but they are an anomally.



If you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body, you probably REALLY need a doctor.

A psychiatrist, NOT a surgeon.

The idea that "transgendered" should be accorded the human right to invade the privacy of normal human beings is insane.

It is roughly the equivalent of passing a law forcing the people to treat the delusions of schizophrenics as reality.


Wow, just wow. Ignorance really is bliss.

The really scary part, this man has claimed he used to be a teacher. I wonder what kind of bigoted bullshyte he filled his charges minds with.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+4
#5  Top Rated Post
The saddest thing is that this has to be a constitutional issue. It has to be legislated
into law at all. Why can't we accept one another without having to spend millions of
dollars making laws and then have to spend even millions more to defend the laws
we instituted. All because we can't let people be what they want to be.
What is even more disturbing is we are supposed to be an open society and a nation
that defends individual freedoms, then we have to institute laws to protect us from
each other.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ok.

Out comes the redneck in me....

There are TWO genders.........male and female.

There are VERY occasionally naturally occurring births of people with both sex organs, or with extra chromonsones, but they are an anomally.



If you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body, you probably REALLY need a doctor.

A psychiatrist, NOT a surgeon.

The idea that "transgendered" should be accorded the human right to invade the privacy of normal human beings is insane.

It is roughly the equivalent of passing a law forcing the people to treat the delusions of schizophrenics as reality.

You really don't get out much or read much or... anything, do you?
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+3
#7
My understanding, and I may be mistaken on this, is that court precedence has already been set showing existing Charter provisions cover discrimination of transgendered people. So I wonder how explicitly we need or want the language of the Charter to be. There are many things that aren't explicitly mentioned, do we need to add them too? Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I see this as a political gambit more than righting a wrong and that makes me distrust it, motivation wise at least. I personally think it's unnecessary, which of course does not mean I support discrimination of this group or any other, but merely that I think the Charter is not the place to be 'symbolic'. How many changes/amendments do we make to include explicit mention of this or that before the Charter becomes a watered down version of what it once was? Maybe that wouldn't happen but I'd personally err on the side of caution with that one.

One other note, and this is something that has always bothered me about the terminology used when discussing LGBT "rights" is that we aren't really talking about LGBT "rights" but we are talking about discrimination against LBGT people. Perhaps it's a minor distinction, but I think it's an important one. I have nothing but support for the LGBT community and I don't view any struggle as a fight for rights but as a fight against discrimination for the rights that we all share (or should share) equally as citizens of this nation.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Wow, just wow. Ignorance really is bliss.

The really scary part, this man has claimed he used to be a teacher. I wonder what kind of bigoted bullshyte he filled his charges minds with.

Sorry Gerry, that I disappoint you by not joining in the political correct group hug and official singing of Kumbaya in honour of the brain dead (yourself obviously included).

I can think for myself, thank you.

I don't need a bunch of panty-waist political hacks and over-educated victim mongers to tell me what is sensible.

I'm truly sorry that you are incapable of thought outside what you are told.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

My understanding, and I may be mistaken on this, is that court precedence has already been set showing existing Charter provisions cover discrimination of transgendered people. So I wonder how explicitly we need or want the language of the Charter to be. There are many things that aren't explicitly mentioned, do we need to add them too? Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I see this as a political gambit more than righting a wrong and that makes me distrust it, motivation wise at least. I personally think it's unnecessary, which of course does not mean I support discrimination of this group or any other, but merely that I think the Charter is not the place to be 'symbolic'. How many changes/amendments do we make to include explicit mention of this or that before the Charter becomes a watered down version of what it once was? Maybe that wouldn't happen but I'd personally err on the side of caution with that one.

One other note, and this is something that has always bothered me about the terminology used when discussing LGBT "rights" is that we aren't really talking about LGBT "rights" but we are talking about discrimination against LBGT people. Perhaps it's a minor distinction, but I think it's an important one. I have nothing but support for the LGBT community and I don't view any struggle as a fight for rights but as a fight against discrimination for the rights that we all share (or should share) equally as citizens of this nation.

What the Hell............

The Charter is already a ****ing joke, we might as well make it fully Monty Pythonesque.

Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

You really don't get out much or read much or... anything, do you?

Once again, I read lots....

Enough to know BS when I see it.

Unlike you, Gerry, and the rest of the brain-dead.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Ok.

Out comes the redneck in me....

There are TWO genders.........male and female.

There are VERY occasionally naturally occurring births of people with both sex organs, or with extra chromonsones, but they are an anomally.

Same for people with red or blonde hair, people who are left-handed, or people with extra digits on their hands or feet.
Perhaps people that go bald should be treated differently than the ones who CHOOSE to be bald or those who keep their hair by choice or by nature.

Quote:

If you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body, you probably REALLY need a doctor.

A psychiatrist, NOT a surgeon.

The idea that "transgendered" should be accorded the human right to invade the privacy of normal human beings is insane.

Who said that TGs want to invade anyone's privacy? And after mentioning a couple traits of humans as being "naturally occurring", you should also accept the rest of human traits as occurring naturally.

Quote:

It is roughly the equivalent of passing a law forcing the people to treat the delusions of schizophrenics as reality.

Nope. Just the schizophrenics themselves.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
+1
#10
Transwomen are women, and transmen are men. Just because they were born in the wrong body doesn't make that wrong. It's not like they do this for ****s and giggles. This is a part of who they are.