Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[Stevicus]

Really? Why particular one of the 76 indexes used is this going to negatively impact?
For reference, Canada scored a perfect 10 for gender, and I'm not thinking this will harm that.

I'm not sure which one it would be, although some freedom indices focus on property rights and the rights of business owners as their priority - oftentimes taking precedence over human rights. Capitalists often view their property rights as sacrosanct and think of their businesses as their own personal plantations. If the government taxes them or tells them they're not allowed to discriminate, they see that as a violation of their property rights and an imposition on their freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Suppose the restaurant codified the language "suggested" by the tribunal. Would the tribunal not then be forced to later defend the right of any offended employee whose preferred pronoun was not used?

Do you understand what a human rights tribunal does? Comments like this make it sound like you don't.

Here: http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/law-library/faqs/human-rights.htm

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you mean you agree with whatever becomes the law? If not, there is probably a misunderstanding here. I am not asking what the law is. I am asking what people think the law should be.

You're making a slippery slope argument though. As if this will lead to you being able to force people to call you 'Your Highness'.
Frankly, that's a spurious argument. The law spells out the line, and there is no compulsion on ANYONE to call you 'Your Highness'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure which one it would be, although some freedom indices focus on property rights and the rights of business owners as their priority - oftentimes taking precedence over human rights. Capitalists often view their property rights as sacrosanct and think of their businesses as their own personal plantations. If the government taxes them or tells them they're not allowed to discriminate, they see that as a violation of their property rights and an imposition on their freedom.

This is the one he's referring to...
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2020

It's entirely possible to download the pdf which shows detailed ratings per country. I did so, and all 76 metrics for Canada are visible, with gender receiving a 10/10.

 

[icehorse]

Sure, just as they would be called upon to support the rights of employees to be called by their actual names rather than an offensive nickname, or any name they would prefer to go by if the alternative was personally insulting to the employee.

This is not compelled speech.

The tribunal would be bound to enforce - for example - that said employee MUST be referred to as "zer" (for example). That's what would be compelled.

 

[icehorse]

Arbitrary words?
Most people get to choose what we call them, though.
I've worked with plenty of folks and currently manage people's who have preferred names different to their legal names. Is that any more arbitrary?

Ok, I should have been more precise: arbitrary pronouns.

 

[icehorse]

Do you understand what a human rights tribunal does? Comments like this make it sound like you don't.

Here: http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/law-library/faqs/human-rights.htm

The tribunal made a report. Some government agency inflicted fines. Do those bureaucratic details matter for this conversation? I mean maybe they do, but I'd ask you to connect the dots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The tribunal made a report. Some government agency inflicted fines. Do those bureaucratic details matter for this conversation? I mean maybe they do, but I'd ask you to connect the dots.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal enforces the BC Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the scope for the tribunal set by legislation.

... so before making assumptions about what the Tribunal would be "forced" to do in future, it might benefit you to educate yourself a bit on what the Tribunal is allowed and required to do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The tribunal would be bound to enforce - for example - that said employee MUST be referred to as "zer" (for example). That's what would be compelled.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal enforces BC's laws against workplace discrimination (among other things). What section of those laws do you think would require the Tribunal to enforce that rule?

 

[icehorse]

The BC Human Rights Tribunal enforces BC's laws against workplace discrimination (among other things). What section of those laws do you think would require the Tribunal to enforce that rule?

This is a red herring. You're missing the point. You're making a distinction without a difference.

A trifecta!

 

[Koldo]

You're making a slippery slope argument though. As if this will lead to you being able to force people to call you 'Your Highness'.
Frankly, that's a spurious argument. The law spells out the line, and there is no compulsion on ANYONE to call you 'Your Highness'.

Once again, would you agree with whatever happened to be the law? If not, then why are you pointing to the line drawn by the law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a red herring. You're missing the point. You're making a distinction without a difference.

A trifecta!

You think that what the tribunal actually enforces is a "red herring" when trying to figure out what they might have to enforce in future?

Interesting.

 

[icehorse]

You think that what the tribunal actually enforces is a "red herring" when trying to figure out what they might have to enforce in future?

Interesting.

I think the tribunal is one cog in the government. I'm interested in what the overall government machinery might do in the future. And I suspect you knew that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the tribunal is one cog in the government. I'm interested in what the overall government machinery might do in the future. And I suspect you knew that.

Considering that you started a thread about the "compelled speech" in a case with no compelled speech, trying to figure out what you're thinking about even real events seems like a lost cause.

When it comes to the elaborate fantasy scenarios you make up about what might happen in the future, I don't even try.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Who told him what to think?

"The restaurant was additionally ordered to, within three months’ time, add “a statement to its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their own personal pronouns.” The tribunal elaborated:

--the article​

The restaurant was told by the government in this ruling that its employees must use the personal pronoun even if they hate the personal pronoun or don't think its appropriate. You can argue its beneficial thought control, however thought control is what it is. They are not allowed to say "I don't agree with the way you want to be addressed."

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think the tribunal is one cog in the government. I'm interested in what the overall government machinery might do in the future. And I suspect you knew that.

Which really is important, but I am more interested more in the situation in the restaurant. Its not fair to force people to agree about this. I hate being called 'Sir'. Everywhere I go I am called 'Sir'. It means "Old man" to me. I don't like it, but I understand. I understand that its not about me.

What Canada is doing is trying to push the 3rd wave ideal that sexuality is not real and is only a social construct. Well they could be wrong. It sounds like some in government want to remake the way people think about relationships through forcing the use of new personal pronouns. They want to change everyone through laws.

 

[SomeRandom]

Which really is important, but I am more interested more in the situation in the restaurant. Its not fair to force people to agree about this. I hate being called 'Sir'. Everywhere I go I am called 'Sir'. It means "Old man" to me. I don't like it, but I understand. I understand that its not about me.

What Canada is doing is trying to push the 3rd wave ideal that sexuality is not real and is only a social construct. Well they could be wrong. It sounds like some in government want to remake the way people think about relationships through forcing the use of new personal pronouns. They want to change everyone through laws.

Sexuality is a social construct though. Do you think heterosexuality and homosexuality just appeared out of thin air? Both are adaptations of humanity. And both are probably not entirely realistic in all honesty. I can’t remember the specific study, though I’ll try my best to find it. The study basically says most humans are innately a “3” on the Kinsey scale. Which is essentially just bicurious. Granted I acknowledge the Kinsey scale probably isn’t the best scale out there. If you get me?
In all honesty that always made sense to me. We are an ape subspecies and sexual encounters even in nature aren’t all about procreation. Often merely just about familial bonding or other reasons. Apes are not 100% either or so it makes sense (at least to me) that we wouldn’t be either. Given that we are literally related to them. If you accept the Theory of Evolution of course.
We are constantly updating our knowledge about sexuality and arguably (to some) merely catching up. The Navajo Indians famously had like 5 genders. How old are they again? My culture has recognised at least 3 genders for like 6,000 years. If anything the West or “Third wave” is just catching up now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The tribunal would be bound to enforce - for example - that said employee MUST be referred to as "zer" (for example). That's what would be compelled.

So, in your mind, all law regarding not using abusive language to your employees is "compelled speech"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think the tribunal is one cog in the government. I'm interested in what the overall government machinery might do in the future. And I suspect you knew that.

Which is... To control people's minds by making them use people's preferred pronouns?

What exactly does step 2 look like in this process?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"The restaurant was additionally ordered to, within three months’ time, add “a statement to its employee policies that affirms every employee’s right to be addressed with their own personal pronouns.” The tribunal elaborated:

--the article​

The restaurant was told by the government in this ruling that its employees must use the personal pronoun even if they hate the personal pronoun or don't think its appropriate.

No, it does not. Read it again.

What is being said that it is wrong to DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY use the wrong pronoun to refer to someone. Nobody is being compelled to use SPECIFIC pronouns. They are being instructed that people HAVE THE RIGHT to personal pronouns, and that to deliberately mislabel them is an infringement of that right.

Again, this is no different to legislation against abuse, name-calling or other inappropriate speech in the workplace. Why is this one, specific instance so troubling compared to the myriad of others?

You can argue its beneficial thought control, however thought control is what it is.

Er... No, it is not.

They are not allowed to say "I don't agree with the way you want to be addressed."

Yes, they are. Nothing in the legislation says that.