Sexual Puritanism in Politically Correct Canada

[yyy]

@Andrew0409

Most recently, I can say bill c-16 would be one that I find ridiculous.

That one again?

Nonbinary gender discussion

First, @Noniway you can see what a storm this is brewing among a group of people who probably have more exposure to the concept than most Taiwanese do, so, um, you can do the math. About the “pronoun laws” in Canada, this is partly a misunderstanding. The MercatorNet article takes a quotation from the Ontario Human Rights Commission out of context, implying that it refers to non-standard pronouns like ze. Few Canadians realize how seriously these statutes infringe upon freedom of s…

I repeat: Canada has not passed a law requiring anyone to say zie.

I don’t have infinite patience for the people who would write such a law – and I know they’re out there – but they are not the people who got elected (or even ran for office afaik). Don’t confuse apples with orange ping-pong balls.

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

@Canadian Bar Association

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression

Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression

For hate crimes, Bill C-16 adds “gender identity or expression” to the identifiable groups protected from those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them. The Supreme Court of Canada found subsection 319(2) (wilful promotion of hatred) to be

…a narrowly confined offence which suffers from neither overbreadth nor vagueness… the provision possesses a stringent mens rea requirement, necessitating either an intent to promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such, and is also strongly supported by the conclusion that the meaning of the word “hatred” is restricted to the most severe and deeply-felt form of opprobrium. Additionally, however, the conclusion that s.
319(2) represents a minimal impairment of the freedom of expression gains credence through the exclusion of private conversation from its scope, the need for the promotion of hatred to focus upon an identifiable group and the presence of the s. 319(3) defences. [12]

For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most “extreme manifestations” with the intention of promoting the “level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection” [13] that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:

The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have. [14]

[12] R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 at 785-86, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1fsr1)
[13] Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLII) (http://canlii.ca/t/fw8x4) at para 57.
[14] Ibid, at para 51

---

@Andrew0409

Trudeau’s whole administration has been about him showing that he the country of Canada is so Progrrssive in social issues and human rights and such. I will admit I don’t follow Canadian politics that closely but that’s all I’ve seen. Not much in the interest of Canada as a whole. And not much done from a financial standpoint from what I can see.

He hasn’t accomplished much while in office is one thing, whether I agree or not (I try to be neutral).

He spends more time on twitter than Donnie so that he can push his insidious Marxist social justice agenda is something else, and it doesn’t sound plausible.