3 ms·

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender

> In 2016 he made a stand against the Canadian government’s introduction of a law that aimed to make it a crime not to address people by their preferred gender pronouns (regardless of chromosomes). I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is already being harassed: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/canadian-lawmakers-pass-bill-extending-transgender-protections-n773421 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/canadian-lawmakers-p... > The bill adds prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, amends the criminal code to extend protections against hate speech and allows judges to take into consideration when sentencing whether a crime was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression.

jo909 9y ago
His conflict started with the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy which clearly includes gender pronouns. That is often getting mixed up with when he also spoke out against C 16 later, with different arguments. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression/3-gender-identity-and-gender-expression http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-be... I think you are right that just in C 16 there is nothing about compelled speech. My understanding of his position is that it's part of a slippery slope, and the interpretation of discrimination or hate speech could easily extend to using the wrong gender pronouns.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  C16 refers to the Ontario human rights commission for interpretation and policy which is a huge problem.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  And then we'll start letting people get married to animals!
larrykwg 9y ago
No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneously disagreeing with the extend of protections and privileges granted to them. I think what most people ultimately take issue with, is that this law was evidently ideologically motivated and it felt like no logical arguments could ever be discussed.
- upofadown 9y ago
  The "it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun" interpretation is only widely accepted by those who have trouble with the definition of the word "discrimination". If I use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone it might rise to the level of harassment if I do it deliberately and repeatedly. It can't be a violation of an anti-discrimination law because it isn't discrimination.
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    I see. So If I insist that my pronoun is "his majesty" and others don't use it, that would be harassment? http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/ For those of us who think that objective reality is more important than what someone's feelings may or may not be, this imposition of a speech code is clearly harassment.
    - aalleavitch 9y ago
      No. That wouldn't be harassment. Here is the Canadian legal definition of harassment: https://www.crcvc.ca/docs/crimharass.pdf https://www.crcvc.ca/docs/crimharass.pdf Now, if I repeatedly followed you around, loudly mocking you and your use of "his majesty" and interfering with your life, then yes that would be harassment.
      - 9y ago
tomohawk 9y ago
This video captures some of his thoughts regarding this. It's the first question he answers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ

jo909 9y ago

His conflict started with the Ontario Human Rights Commission policy which clearly includes gender pronouns. That is often getting mixed up with when he also spoke out against C 16 later, with different arguments. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression/3-gender-identity-and-gender-expression http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-be... I think you are right that just in C 16 there is nothing about compelled speech. My understanding of his position is that it's part of a slippery slope, and the interpretation of discrimination or hate speech could easily extend to using the wrong gender pronouns.

dogma1138 9y ago
C16 refers to the Ontario human rights commission for interpretation and policy which is a huge problem.
aalleavitch 9y ago
And then we'll start letting people get married to animals!

larrykwg 9y ago

No, the widely accepted interpretation of that law is that, if I have a coworker who wants to be called xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself, I have to comply or face punishment, since not be accommodating of this can be construed as harassment. Ideologues want to dismiss everyone who is against this law as transphobic, but this is demonstrably not true, one can be accepting of the human rights of trans people while simultaneously disagreeing with the extend of protections and privileges granted to them. I think what most people ultimately take issue with, is that this law was evidently ideologically motivated and it felt like no logical arguments could ever be discussed.

upofadown 9y ago
The "it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun" interpretation is only widely accepted by those who have trouble with the definition of the word "discrimination". If I use the wrong pronoun when referring to someone it might rise to the level of harassment if I do it deliberately and repeatedly. It can't be a violation of an anti-discrimination law because it isn't discrimination.
- tomohawk 9y ago
  I see. So If I insist that my pronoun is "his majesty" and others don't use it, that would be harassment? http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/ For those of us who think that objective reality is more important than what someone's feelings may or may not be, this imposition of a speech code is clearly harassment.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    No. That wouldn't be harassment. Here is the Canadian legal definition of harassment: https://www.crcvc.ca/docs/crimharass.pdf https://www.crcvc.ca/docs/crimharass.pdf Now, if I repeatedly followed you around, loudly mocking you and your use of "his majesty" and interfering with your life, then yes that would be harassment.
    - 9y ago

tomohawk 9y ago

This video captures some of his thoughts regarding this. It's the first question he answers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F0A4rohauQ