RE: No Trans In The Military Says Trump
August 8, 2017 at 8:41 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2017 at 8:51 pm by bennyboy.)
(August 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm)Javaman Wrote:(August 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm)bennyboy Wrote: ...
The problem is that rights are not well-defined, and people will push the envelope for ever. Look at Canada, where a misuse of gender pronouns is now legislated as a hate crime. In language, there's a serious movement to establish very many new gender pronouns in order to recognize every individual's "right" to have their unique place on various sexual and identity axes represented fully-- and at this rate, it will be a crime not to embrace this bullshit.
Umm no. The bolded is flat out wrong. To borrow a quote from the Canadian Bar Association: "This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation." I've got more quotes to demonstrate your wrongness should you be interested.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada...-pronouns/
The fact is that in Ontario, there is an arbitrating body, the Human Rights Commission, which serves not as a court but as a tribunal, meaning they can pretty much drum up whatever charges they want, without the accused being able to mount a legal defense. It also has very great discretion to determine what constitutes a "hate crime," and given the current political climate, this is a dangerous thing.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaki...acceptance Wrote:Ontario Human Rights Code guidelines “mandate” the use of genderless pronouns on request, he said.
“Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added.
“If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for misgendering or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we’re going to have government-mandated speech.”
A Canadian gym owner was brought up on charges for refusing to let a trans-gender "woman" use the women's changing room because she was walking around with her penis exposed. The gym owner ended up saddled with $100k legal fees, which neither the Commission nor the penis-displaying woman were required to compensate.
See? Special snowflake, special rules, real inconvenience to normal people. It's a problem.