Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
It's only a concern if you believe that people who want to use the bathroom are going to be doing things that aren't going to the bathroom in the bathroom.

You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.

I'm still confused why a law saying treat people the way they want to be treated, is apparenty a bad thing. Like all those health and safety laws, they shouldn't really be needed but there's too many idiots who think joy riding a forklift truck is a good idea.

Something about treating others the way you want to be treated.

Because it says the government can do harm to you if you do not do what it says.

From where I come from, the last time the government mandated laws about bathrooms it required an entire movement to get it changed, and that was after the worst war in its history.
You've now let government so completely into your life that it literally controls everything. Even the Soviets didn't use government control to control bathrooms.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
It's only a concern if you believe that people who want to use the bathroom are going to be doing things that aren't going to the bathroom in the bathroom.

You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.

I'm still confused why a law saying treat people the way they want to be treated, is apparenty a bad thing. Like all those health and safety laws, they shouldn't really be needed but there's too many idiots who think joy riding a forklift truck is a good idea.

Something about treating others the way you want to be treated.

Because it says the government can do harm to you if you do not do what it says.

From where I come from, the last time the government mandated laws about bathrooms it required an entire movement to get it changed, and that was after the worst war in its history.
You've now let government so completely into your life that it literally controls everything. Even the Soviets didn't use government control to control bathrooms.

You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?

So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.

As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.

You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?

Yes I have a daughter and very familiar with her little SJW troupe, and we've discussed junk like this a lot (I may have to warn UT, if she's protesting - don't approach her if her hair is red or blue that day. Blue or green is clear, but red-she'll tear your face right off). I might even relive my youth and join a few on the weekend with her.

So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.

Its not the government's place to tell people what to do in every facet of their lives. As noted, where I come from, government has been used to oppress people. In your country as well, after all some of mine were driven out of there by your government.

As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.

When even the Soviets wouldn't do it, maybe the Canadians shouldn't either.

 Frazzled wrote:

You aren't either Fraz, but you can make your earlier statement?

Yes I have a daughter and very familiar with her little SJW troupe, and we've discussed junk like this a lot (I may have to warn UT, if she's protesting - don't approach her if her hair is red or blue that day. Blue or green is clear, but red-she'll tear your face right off). I might even relive my youth and join a few on the weekend with her.

So your telling me a government shouldn't make it's citizens play nice with each other, with repercussions, if they can't.

Its not the government's place to tell people what to do in every facet of their lives. As noted, where I come from, government has been used to oppress people. In your country as well, after all some of mine were driven out of there by your government.

As far as I can tell the Soviets would have probably cared if you were dissenting in a bathroom, not doing your business in the bathroom you feel is appropriate.

When even the Soviets wouldn't do it, maybe the Canadians shouldn't either.

I too can pull the female relation card "when she's winding up to kick you in the goolies, now's the time to stop questioning everything she says" with a younger sister.

As far as was explained above, this is a "I'd like to be refered to as X, could you stop referring to me as Y" kind of law, seems less intrusive and more on the side of I assume existing Canadian harrasment laws. There's government rulings that are scary "see the snoopers charter in the UK" and government rulings that don't really need to exist but people can't apparently use common sense and not "lynch Blacks, refer to someone using their correct pronoun once you know about it, joy ride a fork lift truck". This for me falls into the latter and not the former.

So, would this bill allow men in Canada to use women's bathrooms or not?
I think it should, because just like making something "white-only" is discriminating against black people, making something "women-only" would be similarly discriminating against men now that gender-based discrimination has been equated with racial discrimination.
That is kinda scary, to be honest.

Apart from that little consideration, I don't think this bill is as bad as many make it out to be.

To be clear I am not making it out as absurdly bad, just arguing as people tend to overlook da wimminz on these issues.

 Frazzled wrote:

You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.

I'd make his statement too, for what it's worth.

 Frazzled wrote:
To be clear I am not making it out as absurdly bad, just arguing as people tend to overlook da wimminz on these issues.

And that's all well and good but this is not the way to do it. If you really care about the 'wimminz' there are countless issues both bigger and more real that can be adressed without kicking transpeople in their private parts.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

You're not female so have no grounds to make that statement.

I'd make his statement too, for what it's worth.

 Frazzled wrote:
To be clear I am not making it out as absurdly bad, just arguing as people tend to overlook da wimminz on these issues.

And that's all well and good but this is not the way to do it. If you really care about the 'wimminz' there are countless issues both bigger and more real that can be adressed without kicking transpeople in their private parts.

How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

If there is no law, then there is no law against them doing what they want to do either.
If there is no law then I can continue to treat everyone equally and continue to refer to them as "worthless bags of mostly water."

 Frazzled wrote:
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

The bathroom issue. In Sweden you can use what bathroom you like and the amount of issues this has created is exactly zero.

The bill that was the actual original topic also is already law here, and has also helped a lot more than it has harmed.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

The bathroom issue. In Sweden you can use what bathroom you like and the amount of issues this has created is exactly zero.

The bill that was the actual original topic also is already law here, and has also helped a lot more than it has harmed.

In Canada you can as well, same for the US (I don't know about Louisiana as that is a separate country). You don't need a law telling people what to do.

John Prins wrote:

All that said, I'm not in favor of bill C-16. It's a waste of the government's time, given these protections were already in place, if merely implicit rather than explicit. It's also smoke and mirrors for their plan to privatize a bunch of crown properties. Yes, it's a distraction from them selling government property to their cronies, which is the issue Canadians SHOULD be outraged over.

This is the real issue. The Canadian Liberal Party is not "left" wing, not really. They have the same "private good, public bad" mantra the Cons have, they just leave the social and religious nonsense out when it comes to crafting their policy.

The fact that a few very rich friends of the Libs are going to become even richer as the government sells off our public assets is the real fething issue.

Not this totally fabricated moral outrage about what fething gender pronoun someone, somewhere may want you to use.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ShieldBrother wrote:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/25/opinion/opinion-bill-c-16-flawed-ways-most-canadians-have-not-considered

I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)

So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?

Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.


But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.

Given that we've just barely ousted Governor Bathroom Bill, I don't think we've got a whole lot of room to throw stones about 'wastes of taxpayer money'...

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't need a law telling people what to do.

Considering you have laws telling people they are not allowed to discriminate based on race, or that they are not allowed to murder one another, it would appear that you do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't need a law telling people what to do.

Considering you have laws telling people they are not allowed to discriminate based on race, or that they are not allowed to murder one another, it would appear that you do.

You can literally use that argument for anything the government wants to do. Evidently absolutism is something you look forward to.

 Frazzled wrote:
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.

They can already say STFU. Its easy. I just did it.

Anyone with no sense of smell, a strong stomach, or the courage to use the same bathroom as I do is more than welcome to risk their life/sanity. I really do not care who or what they are, but they are assuming all risk to their mental well being.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is kicking trans "in their private parts?"

Because self-appointed bathroom police often make trouble for anyone they think isn't the appropriate gender (based on their superficial impressions, of course). So trans people who don't look absolutely 100% like their intended gender risk getting harassed and having their identity denied. With a law granting them explicit permission to be there the bathroom police can still object, but can at least be answered with "STFU, you're wrong" and have no power to force anyone to leave.

They can already say STFU. Its easy. I just did it.

Then the rentacop forces or shame them out, rat them to their employer and get them fired. This exact scenario happened yesterday to a lady in my Union, and then another time about 6 years ago back in Alberta.

C-16 may be a sham, but the effect remains that it publicize an aspect of the Law that many ignore, and as such it does accomplish a certain positive role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

As Canada is in an economic recession and their exchange rate is now 1.35 I'd suggest they have far more important things to worry about.

As the US just elected Trump, I'd suggest... anything, really, but I know Americans won't listen to reason anyways.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.

But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.

Maybe read the law. There was a nice summary above. This amends a couple of pieces of law to extend existing protections to also include gender identity. The cost you are so worried about is some liquid paper and a black pen.

 sebster wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Not Canadian, but as an American, I consider this a waste of Canadian taxpayer money.

But another country, another system. Apparently, many Canadians are okay with this, since they continue to elect politicians who cook up this nonsense.

Maybe read the law. There was a nice summary above. This amends a couple of pieces of law to extend existing protections to also include gender identity. The cost you are so worried about is some liquid paper and a black pen.

The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.

John Prins wrote:
The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.

Could you clarify just which important bills with sufficient support to pass died out because time was spent on this one?

 Peregrine wrote:

John Prins wrote:
The real cost is the time wasted in the House of Commons that could have been spent on other bills. The House only has so much time to deal with stuff, and bills can and do die out because there isn't enough time in the year to debate them fully.

Could you clarify just which important bills with sufficient support to pass died out because time was spent on this one?

The session's not over yet. it ends Dec 16. For a full list of bills in front of the House of Commons https://openparliament.ca/bills/

And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.

John Prins wrote:
The law can't even force you to use their preferred personal pronoun, though it can force you from using the one they don't like.

First, let me state this isn't a hill I really wish to die on, but I find interesting. However, if the law can exclude the use of all but the preferred, it essentially is forcing you to use the preferred- at least if you wish to interact with them (or if you have to interact). There's a subtle difference between the government saying 'you can't call someone something hateful' and 'you MUST say the right words'. Compelling vocal assent by law just doesn't sit right with me.

That said, I'd happily call anyone by whatever they want. I'd just take exception to the government trying to compel me to do so.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't calling a guy a girl (don't be a girl, it's just a snake!) effectively fall under this?

Again, this whole gender pronoun issue is smokescreen to distract us from the fact the the Trudeau government is selling off parts of our future to have some cash to flash today. It's stupid and shortsighted.

 ShieldBrother wrote:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/25/opinion/opinion-bill-c-16-flawed-ways-most-canadians-have-not-considered

I for one think this is a terrible idea, considering how silly most of those "pronouns" can get. (Xer, Xee etc.) And now you can get in trouble if you don't want to call them their imaginary names. And considering how angry the whole LGBT feminist movement can get, makes some people that speak their mind very easy targets. (See the professor)

So what is Dakka's other Canadians thought on this?

sounds kind of stupid

So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?

John Prins wrote:
The session's not over yet. it ends Dec 16. For a full list of bills in front of the House of Commons https://openparliament.ca/bills/

And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked about bills which had enough support to pass but failed because time ran out, not failed bills in general. Since parliament is still in session that's a pretty clear sign that these bills died because they weren't supported, not because there wasn't any time to vote on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:
sounds kind of stupid

So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?

Fortunately in most of the civilized world the police and courts have the ability to tell the difference between a sincere belief and a parody done for the sake of mocking a law.

 Peregrine wrote:

John Prins wrote:
The session's not over yet. it ends Dec 16. For a full list of bills in front of the House of Commons https://openparliament.ca/bills/

And yes, there are a lot of time wasting bills in there. S-208 (a bill introduced in the senate) for "National Seal Products Day" is my favorite. There are 5 currently "dormant" bills put forth by the standing government. and 22 currently under debate, never mind all the MANY private member's bills, some of which actually look worthwhile but few private members bills ever pass; they get very little debate. Bill C-277 would introduce a framework to guarantee all Canadians access to high quality palliative care. How much real debate will that get? C-223 died on the floor, and it was about establishing a Canadian Organ Donor Registry. Fortunately it's been moved to the standing committee on health, so there's still hope for it.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked about bills which had enough support to pass but failed because time ran out, not failed bills in general. Since parliament is still in session that's a pretty clear sign that these bills died because they weren't supported, not because there wasn't any time to vote on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:
sounds kind of stupid

So, If I say my pronoun is "god Emperor" Anthony, could I have someone arrested for not using it?

Fortunately in most of the civilized world the police and courts have the ability to tell the difference between a sincere belief and a parody done for the sake of mocking a law.

It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings. I get it, if someone wants to be called Xer, fine whatever, but if someone refuses to call them that, Canadians are willing to toss out a fine or heaven forbid jail time?

Whats next, not calling a Doctor a Doctor will get you fined? This all seems to be getting out of control.

 Supertony51 wrote:
It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings.

Yes, that's the point of laws against hate speech. You can disagree with the concept of those laws as a general rule, but in the Canadian context the only question with this particular law is whether or not denying a person's gender identity is sufficiently bad to be considered hate speech or discrimination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Supertony51 wrote:
Whats next, not calling a Doctor a Doctor will get you fined? This all seems to be getting out of control.

Are doctors a vulnerable minority that are regularly subject to poor treatment based on their identity as a doctor? This is what I mean about the courts and police being able to tell the difference between a legitimate offense and someone making up parodies as a protest against the law.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Supertony51 wrote:
It's still ridiculous, it's adding punitive action to violating someones feelings.

Yes, that's the point of laws against hate speech. You can disagree with the concept of those laws as a general rule, but in the Canadian context the only question with this particular law is whether or not denying a person's gender identity is sufficiently bad to be considered hate speech or discrimination.

That's a bit of a slippery slope isn't it? Isn't it possible for the definition of "hate" speech to continue to evolve to include more and more things? As far as im concerned the only thing that should be considered "hate speech" is language that solicits of encourages violence against another demographic for the sake of suppression of that demographic. Outside of that, I think labeling anything a group doesn't "like" as hate speech is really murky waters

Can you imagine a reason to deliberately use (for example) "Mr" when addressing a transwoman that doesn't involve a hateful motivation?