Bill C-16 in Canada: Good or Bad?

The purpose of Bill C-16 in Canada would expand the human rights act and criminal code to protect gender identity as well and to protect people from "gender identity based hate propaganda", and the surrounding policies would essentially criminalize "misgendering" someone to which a person could face criminal charges for using the wrong pronoun.

Here is a link to Canada's open parliament page for the bill:
https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

And here is a link to the full text of the bill:
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/third-reading

And here is a video of the Senate hearing on the bill:
YouTube video

Canadian Fascism! It is almost CUTE!

rofl

This shit is ridiculous.

EDIT: Also a good example of SJWs causing very real harm.

Discrimination based on gender identity is bad so... support? 😐

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Discrimination based on gender identity is bad so... support? 😐

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
No

but making hurting someone's feelings a crime is bad.

FYI:

Source: Canadian Bar Association (http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f)

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 expressions" 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
[quote]...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.

Human rights legislation and freedom of expression

For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.
[quote]The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

And if you prefer facts to silly narratives I suggesting reading that statement in full. 👆

First of all, trans people already have human rights in Canada. Secondly, this bill is too vague and arbitrary. For example, this line: "as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations"". What's an "extreme manifestation"? If someone says "**** trannies", is that extreme enough to warrant jail time? If a priest or an imam, or whatever proclaims that transsexuals are living in horrible sin and that makes a transsexual person feel like they are being "abhorred, delegitimized and rejected"(quoting directly from the bill here), which would not even be a wrong way to interpret the wording of the bill, should the priest/imam/rabbi/whatever be jailed?

And there are many, many other examples of potential confusion being caused this ambiguous and unnecessary bill.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
First of all, trans people already have human rights in Canada.

Secondly, this bill is too vague and arbitrary. For example, this line: "as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations"". What's an "extreme manifestation"? If someone says "**** trannies", is that extreme enough to warrant jail time? If a priest or an imam, or whatever proclaims that transsexuals are living in horrible sin and that makes a transsexual person feel like they are being "abhorred, delegitimized and rejected"(quoting directly from the bill here), which would not even be a wrong way to interpret the wording of the bill, should the priest/imam/rabbi/whatever be jailed?

And there are many, many other examples of potential confusion being caused this ambiguous and unnecessary bill.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
True, which means there is no reason why they shouldn't have those rights enshrined in Canada's human rights act. Though prior to this bill, prejudice-incited crimes against trans people were not explicitly considered to be hate crimes.

The most you can get from violating the human rights code in Canada is a fine, so whether or not X or Y warrants jail time is irrelevant. Nonetheless what constitutes an "extreme manifestation" was clearly defined i.e. something that "advocates genocide [and/or] publicly incites hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them." Saying "f*ck trannies" in most cases is probably not going to do this. And given the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to get away with marching around shouting "God hate f*gs" I'm willing to bet the rabbis & friends needn't be worried.

Which is why we have courts to examine and rule on them. This being an amendment to a preexisting human rights act that affords the same protections to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc. there is no reason to exclude trans people from this list.

It's redundant and adds unnecessary confusion. Sexual minorities were already protected by Canadian law.

Only a fine? That's still too much. Once again, openly calling for violence/genocide was already illegal in Canada(Hell, it's illegal even in the First Amendment-happy US). Again, more redundancy. The point is, the bill mentions more than inciting violence. Once again, the bill states "promoting the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection". This is very distinct from inciting actual violence. So someone saying "**** trannies" or "God hates ****", or that transsexualism is an abomination and a sin could easily be accused of abhorring, delegitimizing or rejecting. Speaking of Westboro Baptist Church, I'm pretty sure the group has been deemed illegal in Canada, but don't quote me on that.

Why encumber the courts with this arbitrary nonsense, though? Canada already affords all human rights to sexual minorities(transsexuals included). Or at the very least, they should get rid of ambiguous wording like the above example.

No, the only thing that's being added is gender identity to the list of things protected by the Canadian human rights act and criminal code. What you're quoting are extracts from pre-existing human rights rulings that predate this bill, made in regards to the definition of hate crimes and hate speech in general. FYI, the complete definition is: "[things that] incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html) So again saying mean things isn't enough, it actually has to cause provable harm to the person, and that's already in effect for other groups.

And once again if gays, straights, blacks, whites etc. are afforded these protections per the act, there is no reason to trans people shouldn't be included either. The fact that they already possess many of this rights only make it less of an issue. And in general, your complaints seem to be inclusive of the human rights act as a whole, as none of these issues or approaches are exclusive to trans people.

Is it redundant and unnecessary to have a human rights act on top of pre-existing laws? I wouldn't say so, codes that like this act as a guideline for the law to follow, and an extra element of rigidity to ensure those laws already in effect aren't overturned.

You're right about the WBC though, seems they were banned after they tried to stage a protest at a funeral. I assume anti-trans groups would receive similar treatment, though I can't say I'd lose any sleep over it.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
No, the only thing that's being added is gender identity to the list of things protected by the Canadian human rights act and criminal code. What you're quoting are extracts from pre-existing human rights rulings that predate this bill, made in regards to the definition of hate crimes and hate speech in general. FYI, the complete definition is: "[things that] incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects." (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html) So again saying mean things isn't enough, it actually has to cause provable harm to the person, and that's already in effect for other groups.

And once again if gays, straights, blacks, whites etc. are afforded these protections per the act, there is no reason to trans people shouldn't be included either. The fact that they already possess many of this rights only make it less of an issue. And in general, your complaints seem to be inclusive of the human rights act as a whole, as none of these issues or approaches are exclusive to trans people.

Is it redundant and unnecessary to have a human rights act on top of pre-existing laws? I wouldn't say so, codes that like this act as a guideline for the law to follow, and an extra element of rigidity to ensure those laws already in effect aren't overturned.

You're right about the WBC though, seems they were banned after they tried to stage a protest at a funeral. I assume anti-trans groups would receive similar treatment, though I can't say I'd lose any sleep over it.

But how do you prove harm or assess the risk of it causing harm? If you said a mean thing about someone and they became depressed or even suicidal, is that proof enough? What if a priest denounces transsexualism in front of his congregation and one of the attendants decides to go out there and do "God's work" and beat the crap(or worse) out of some transsexuals, is that proof enough to get the priest in trouble(who, remember, never outright called for violence)? It's still way too fudgy.

Ahh yes, now it makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem it being an addition to an already existing act, but I do indeed take issue with the wording of the act in general.

I really think that depends on the attitude of the public in general. If the people of a country are educated, tolerant and accepting, then such an act is merely the icing on the cake. If the people are benighted bigots, a whole mountain of human rights acts isn't going to change anything. The law is what matters in the end.

I can understand them being barred from showing up at a funeral, but banning them altogether seems heavy-handed to me.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
True, which means there is no reason why they shouldn't have those rights enshrined in Canada's human rights act. Though prior to this bill, prejudice-incited crimes against trans people were not explicitly considered to be hate crimes.

And these laws are so often abused with double standards. In Canada, people protesting a Mosque were arrested for hate speech, but iirc law enforcement was rather apathetic once they realized the reason they were protesting the mosque because the Imam was saying "I hope Allah kills all the Jews and Christians" and "those filthy Jews." And in the US the four black people who tortured that one white disabled kid who repeatedly said "**** white people" and "**** Donald Trump" and the Chicago Police chief tried to deny that it was a hate crime and claimed it was not racially or politically motivated. Not to mention the founder of BLM Toronto who tweeted out that she wanted to kill white people who as far as I know faced no repercussions for that.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
was clearly defined i.e. something that "advocates genocide [and/or] publicly incites hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them." Saying "f*ck trannies" in most cases is probably not going to do this.

And yes, saying "**** trannies" is going to do this considering one of the Senators defending this bill claimed and defended that knowingly using the wrong pronoun or name for someone could be dealt with by the court system, and since "**** trannies" quote on quote "promotes hatred against them."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And given the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to get away with marching around shouting "God hate f*gs" I'm willing to bet the rabbis & friends needn't be worried. Certainly you won't be facing criminal charges for using the wrong pronoun.

The Canadian government however barred the Church's members from entering the country lmfao.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Which is why we have courts to examine and rule on them. This being an amendment to a preexisting human rights act that affords the same protections to people on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc. there is no reason to exclude trans people from this list.

"hate speech" is bullshit Beni. Just because it is already legislated for some groups doesn't even mean it should be legislated into law because it shouldn't. Arresting someone for saying something that hurts your feelings is beyond childish and is an inexcusable violation of their rights.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
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 expressions" 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
quote:
...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

And "deeply felt"? I'm glad that's an objective and unvauge measurable criteria for the government to take legal action out of 👆

Both of the Senators defending the Bill in the Senate hearing responded to the claim that it was a compelled use of pronouns by saying that instead of using the disagreed with pronoun you could use "they/them" pronouns or their name in supposition for their pronoun but still arguing knowingly using the wrong name or pronoun was "knowingly hurting them" and something the law should be able to address. In defense of this bill's implications for free speech the people defending this bill never denied that this bill would be used against those using the wrong pronouns or names, in fact they actively reaffirmed that this is how the bill would be used, and the opposition to this bill that has spent a lengthy amount of time studying it and the surrounding policies have pointed out its threats to free speech as well. Nobody in the entire senate hearing denied that this is how the bill would be used in practice.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
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" 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:
quote:
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.
quote:
Human rights legislation and freedom of expression

For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.
quote:
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

In a bill as vaguely worded in some places and specifically worded in others like this, the potential definitely exists for abuse, and the Canadian senators have made no denial of how this bill will be used and in fact support the bill being used to prosecute people who knowingly use the wrong name or pronoun, and have defended this with really shitty arguments, but arguments that nonetheless don't contradict the statements of the Bar association you have posted.

I think someone is mentally ill if they get upset over being called the wrong pronoun.

That would explain the mass majority of SJW issue then.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
"Hate crimes" are bullshit. A crime is a crime. What a person feels deep on the inside when murdering a person doesn't change the fact that they murdered a person and I don't see why the law should address this in any special way.

Regardless you are wrong, a hate crime intrinsically differs from other crimes in the respect that instead of targeting a specific person and/or resulting in persons being collateral damage, it targets a group of people, and in that respect, has a broader impact, which arguably warrants a harsher or at least different response.

However that's besides the point. The point was that the bill is in some respects putting trans people or equal footing with everyone else where they were previously not. Disagree with the rights in principle if you like, but that doesn't justify giving them to some people while barring them from others.

And these laws are so often abused with double standards. In Canada, people protesting a Mosque were arrested for hate speech, but iirc law enforcement was rather apathetic once they realized the reason they were protesting the mosque because the Imam was saying "I hope Allah kills all the Jews and Christians" and "those filthy Jews." And in the US the four black people who tortured that one white disabled kid who repeatedly said "**** white people" and "**** Donald Trump" and the Chicago Police chief tried to deny that it was a hate crime and claimed it was not racially or politically motivated. Not to mention the founder of BLM Toronto who tweeted out that she wanted to kill white people who as far as I know faced no repercussions for that.

And BLM is an excellent example of what happens when hate speech goes unregulated. Encouraging a culture in which its OK to denigrate, abuse and even kill "white people" has real, dangerous repercussions on society, and shouldn't go unpunished.

No it was very vaguely defined.

And yes, saying "**** trannies" is going to do this considering one of the Senators defending this bill claimed and defended that knowingly using the wrong pronoun or name for someone could be dealt with by the court system, and since "**** trannies" quote on quote "promotes hatred against them."

Yes because they are not in Canada, they are in America Beni. We'll fight for their right to say what they want to say even if we vehemently disagree with the content of what they are saying because in America freedom of speech is rightly considered a basic and valued human right.

The Canadian government however barred the Church's members from entering the country lmfao.

But sure, America is the land of the brave and free yada yada yada, no doubt you're handing out copies of the Dabiq at this very moment.

Yes and this "humans right act" has done bullshit things like get people arrested for protesting a mosque that was calling for the deaths of "those filthy Jews"

"hate speech" is bullshit Beni. Just because it is already legislated for some groups doesn't even mean it should be legislated into law because it shouldn't. Arresting someone for saying something that hurts your feelings is beyond childish and is an inexcusable violation of their rights.

To liken the impact of hate speech to "hurting people's feelings" is strawman in the extreme, and as far as I'm concerned anything that can be deemed to directly incite violence, terroism, discrimination, suicide etc. should be taken deadly seriously. But no, of course, it would be entirely childish to take action against some for encouraging others to blow themselves up, kill white people, kill trans people or get them to kill themselves, these are private citizens and should be left alone. 😂

And "deeply felt"? I'm glad that's an objective and unvauge measurable criteria for the government to take legal action out of 👆

Both of the Senators defending the Bill in the Senate hearing responded to the claim that it was a compelled use of pronouns by saying that instead of using the disagreed with pronoun you could use "they/them" pronouns or their name in supposition for their pronoun but still arguing knowingly using the wrong name or pronoun was "knowingly hurting them" and something the law should be able to address. In defense of this bill's implications for free speech the people defending this bill never denied that this bill would be used against those using the wrong pronouns or names, in fact they actively reaffirmed that this is how the bill would be used, and the opposition to this bill that has spent a lengthy amount of time studying it and the surrounding policies have pointed out its threats to free speech as well. Nobody in the entire senate hearing denied that this is how the bill would be used in practice.

Those Senators may think that misgendering a person constitutes "the most severe and deeply-felt approbrium", but clearly the legal-experts do not. And once again, the Senate are not involved in carrying out the legislation.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
But how do you prove harm or assess the risk of it causing harm? If you said a mean thing about someone and they became depressed or even suicidal, is that proof enough? What if a priest denounces transsexualism in front of his congregation and one of the attendants decides to go out there and do "God's work" and beat the crap(or worse) out of some transsexuals, is that proof enough to get the priest in trouble(who, remember, never outright called for violence)? It's still way too fudgy.

Ahh yes, now it makes more sense to me. I don't see a problem it being an addition to an already existing act, but I do indeed take issue with the wording of the act in general.

I really think that depends on the attitude of the public in general. If the people of a country are educated, tolerant and accepting, then such an act is merely the icing on the cake. If the people are benighted bigots, a whole mountain of human rights acts isn't going to change anything. The law is what matters in the end.

I can understand them being barred from showing up at a funeral, but banning them altogether seems heavy-handed to me.

Amazes me how angry people get about issues that have never and in all likelihood will never affect them ever.

Yeah, it is always silly when people try and stand up to those that just want to Slowly Chip away at their Freedoms.