Postmodernism is alive, very influential, very destructive, and very opposed to critical thinking

[icehorse]

You need to examine your motives in your claims. It's your own transphobic bigotry that prevents you from understanding that inclusion of gender identity and expression in Canada's anti-discrimination and hate propaganda laws is no different than inclusion of race, religion, sexual orientation and sex in these laws.

Instead of addressing the lawyer's series of factual claims, you resort to ad hominem attacks. It would appear ya got nuttin'. (And please notice that in spite of persistent ad hominem attacks from you, I'm only arguing ideas, I'm not attempting to besmirch you.)

And finally - for the record - my SOLE motivation here is to defend free speech.

 

[Nous]

Instead of addressing the lawyer's series of factual claims

I responded to your claim. See here:

Quote one.

You didn't respond to the question I asked you, even bolding it and putting it in larger font so you wouldn't miss it:

Where are all the prosecutions for using the wrong pronouns?

Note that the DOJ's Q&A webpage explaining this law, how it amends the criminal code and the Human Rights Act, what is a hate crime, etc., etc., uses one of the "wrong pronouns" that you claim people will be thrown in prison for using.

How far into absurdity can one sink?

The only possible motivation for making such nutty claims about this law that merely includes gender identity and expression in hate propaganda and anti-discrimination statutes is transphobic bigotry. In your previous thread about this law, you expressed entirely different reasons for why this law would ruin the country. After those reasons were deconstructed and refuted, you have now moved on to reasons that are even more ludicrous.

 

[icehorse]

I responded to your claim. See here:

You didn't respond to the question I asked you, even bolding it and putting it in larger font so you wouldn't miss it:


Note that the DOJ's Q&A webpage explaining this law, how it amends the criminal code and the Human Rights Act, what is a hate crime, etc., etc., uses one of the "wrong pronouns" that you claim people will be thrown in prison for using.

How far into absurdity can one sink?

The only possible motivation for making such nutty claims about this law that merely includes gender identity and expression in hate propaganda and anti-discrimination statutes is transphobic bigotry. In your previous thread about this law, you expressed entirely different reasons for why this law would ruin the country. After those reasons were deconstructed and refuted, you have now moved on to reasons that are even more ludicrous.

I never said that there have YET been any prosecutions. That doesn't mean anything? Are you proposing that we should just willy-nilly enact new laws and see how they work out?

Next, I don't think my thinking on this issue has changed at all. I've been asked to provide more details which I've tried to do, but I don't think my orientation has shifted. My motivation for bringing this issue up, is now, and always has been, a concern over how this collection of laws could negatively impact free speech.

Your conclusions about my feelings towards the trans community are entirely your own fabrication. If anything, all I've said about the trans community is my belief that this law will probably make their lives worse, not better.

Finally, I don't think my ideas on this issue have been refuted in this forum. And I will assure you that I'm open to learning and revising my opinions and knowledge.

As things stand now, I see politicians who have no idea what they're doing supporting this bill, and a lawyer who puts forth a very precise (if complex), criticism of this bill. (The reason I say the politicians have no idea what they're doing, is because I watched over an hour of testimony in front of the Senate committee, and the politicians were mostly embarrassingly uninformed and out of their depth.)

Until you provide specific criticisms of the lawyers legal reasoning, you're asking me to accept your ad hominems and vague, ad-hoc reasoning, over the carefully thought-through and explicit work of an established lawyer. It could be the lawyer is a closet trans-phobe but I see no evidence of that, and you have done nothing to address his logic.

 

[Nous]

I never said that there have YET been any prosecutions.

I know you haven't. I asked: Where are all the prosecutions for using the wrong pronouns? The law has been in effect for 6 months. What's the hold up in enforcing the law? Canadians are using the wrong pronouns left and right, every minute of the day. The wrong pronouns even occur in print on the DOJ's webpage that explains what the law does.

Apparently you believe and want us to believe that the DOJ's webpage is a sham, a big conspiratorial lie--the real purpose and effect of the law is to compel speech and throw people in prison for using the wrong pronouns.

I ask again: How far into absurdity can one sink?

And what is a rational person supposed to conclude from the fact that you simply do not take in information about this law? I've linked to what the DOJ explains about the law's meaning and effect; I recall earlier quoting from the Supreme Court about what hate propaganda entails. But you haven't taken in any of that information. You haven't addressed any of that information or explained why you believe the DOJ and Supreme Court is allegedly engaging in this ruse about the reasons for and effects of a law that includes "gender identity" and "gender expression" in the anti-discrimination and hate propaganda statutes.

 

[icehorse]

And what is a rational person supposed to conclude from the fact that you simply do not take in information about this law?

How can you say that? I've cited a legal analysis of this set of laws several times in this thread. (And please notice that it's a set of laws, working together, that create the issue I'm discussing. It's not one single law.)

Where are all the prosecutions for using the wrong pronouns?

This is a meaningless question. I'm happy to admit that so far there haven't been any trans people suing someone for the wrong pronoun. This fact proves nothing. In general it times time for people to poke and prod at the limits of new laws, there is no timetable.

 

[Nous]

How can you say that? I've cited a legal analysis of this set of laws several times in this thread

Legal analysis? You haven't said anything minimally coherent about this law yet. You certainly haven't cited any case law or shown that what the DOJ says about this law's meaning and effect is erroneous. You haven't addressed anything that the DOJ says on its webpage about this law, or how you have supposedly logically arrived at a different conclusion about the law's effect.

This is a meaningless question. I'm happy to admit that so far there haven't been any trans people suing someone for the wrong pronoun.

The anti-discrimination and hate propaganda laws are both criminal statutes. People are prosecuted for violating them.

 

[icehorse]

Legal analysis? You haven't said anything minimally coherent about this law yet. You certainly haven't cited any case law or shown that what the DOJ says about this law's meaning and effect is erroneous. You haven't addressed anything that the DOJ says on its webpage about this law, or how you have supposedly logically arrived at a different conclusion about the law's effect.

I have pointed to the testimony of Jared Brown and his article / brief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you haven't yet poked any holes in his analysis.

As for the suing thing - you're correct, my bad. These are indeed criminal statutes.

 

[Nous]

I have pointed to the testimony of Jared Brown and his article / brief. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you haven't yet poked any holes in his analysis.

There is no intelligent "analysis" of the statute that even vaguely suggests that it prohibits the use of certain pronouns. You haven't said or quoted anything coherent about the law that does nothing but include gender identity and gender expression in the anti-discrimination and hate propaganda statutes.

 

[icehorse]

There is no intelligent "analysis" of the statute that even vaguely suggests that it prohibits the use of certain pronouns. You haven't said or quoted anything coherent about the law that does nothing but include gender identity and gender expression in the anti-discrimination and hate propaganda statutes.

Your post demonstrates that you're not even aware of the concern put forth by the lawyer. This is a complex issue, your ad hoc reckoning is insufficient.

 

[Nous]

Your post demonstrates that you're not even aware of the concern put forth by the lawyer.

You haven't been able to quote any rational "concern" about the law prohibiting the use of certain pronouns or compelling the use of certain pronouns. Correct?

 

[icehorse]

You haven't been able to quote any rational "concern" about the law prohibiting the use of certain pronouns or compelling the use of certain pronouns. Correct?

Incorrect. I posted a video of a lawyer giving testimony in front of a Senate committee and a link to a detailed and well-reasoned article by the same lawyer.

And to be clear, the concern is about compelling the use of certain pronouns - which I've said many times in this thread.

Unless you listen to or read the links I've provided and respond to those directly, I'm done discussing this with you. Unless you do that, all we have is the benefit of your hunches, which you seem comfortable stacking up against the thought-through and documented arguments of a lawyer. Once again, he's put effort into his argument and he's published it.

 

[Nous]

You haven't been able to quote any rational "concern" about the law prohibiting the use of certain pronouns or compelling the use of certain pronouns. Correct?

Incorrect.

Quote it again, then. I didn't see it.

 

[icehorse]

Canadian lawyer Jared Brown, concerning C-16:

Senate testimony (Jared Brown's section is between 6:30 and 11:40), although the whole thing - while long - is worth watching:

Blog post / brief:

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

 

[Nous]

Canadian lawyer Jared Brown, concerning C-16:

Senate testimony (Jared Brown's section is between 6:30 and 11:40), although the whole thing - while long - is worth watching:

Blog post / brief:

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

So, again, despite my repeated requests, you are unable to quote any rational "concern" about the law prohibiting the use of certain pronouns or compelling the use of certain pronouns. But you'd rather state the blatant falsehood of having already quoted something instead of admitting the obvious fact that you haven't done so. Let me know if you come up with something coherent idea at some point.

 

[icehorse]

@Nous

If you breach an order issued by the HR Tribunal, you can be held in contempt, which can land you in jail.

So far so good?

 

[Nous]

@Nous

If you breach an order issued by the HR Tribunal, you can be held in contempt, which can land you in jail.

I don't think that is true (but I might be wrong). Here are remedies available to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that are authorized by statute:

E. Remedies

If the Tribunal finds that a complaint of discrimination is established, it can make an order against the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice. The order can include any of the following terms:

cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to prevent the practice from occurring in the future (see s. 53(2)(a) of the Act);

make available to the victim the rights, opportunities or privileges that were denied (see s. 53(2)(b) of the Act);

compensate the victim for any lost wages as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(c) of the Act);

compensate the victim for the additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(d) of the Act);

compensate the victim up to $20,000 for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(e) of the Act);

compensate the victim up to $20,000 if the discrimination was wilful or reckless(see s. 53(3) of the Act); and,

award interest on an order to pay financial compensation (see s. 53(4) of the Act).​

Guide to CHRT

One can always appeal to federal court to review an HRC decision that one disagrees with.

If you have different information, please present it.

 

[icehorse]

I don't think that is true (but I might be wrong). Here are remedies available to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that are authorized by statute:

E. Remedies

If the Tribunal finds that a complaint of discrimination is established, it can make an order against the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice. The order can include any of the following terms:

cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to prevent the practice from occurring in the future (see s. 53(2)(a) of the Act);

make available to the victim the rights, opportunities or privileges that were denied (see s. 53(2)(b) of the Act);

compensate the victim for any lost wages as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(c) of the Act);

compensate the victim for the additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(d) of the Act);

compensate the victim up to $20,000 for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of the discrimination (see s. 53(2)(e) of the Act);

compensate the victim up to $20,000 if the discrimination was wilful or reckless(see s. 53(3) of the Act); and,

award interest on an order to pay financial compensation (see s. 53(4) of the Act).​

Guide to CHRT

One can always appeal to federal court to review an HRC decision that one disagrees with.

If you have different information, please present it.

And what if the "guilty" party refuses to pay the fine?

As I understand it, if the "guilty" party is fined and refuses to pay, they can be held in contempt which is then a criminal charge, correct?

 

[Nous]

And what if the "guilty" party refuses to pay the fine?

As I understand it, if the "guilty" party is fined and refuses to pay, they can be held in contempt which is then a criminal charge, correct?

I still don't think you are correct. Section 57 allows for an HRC order under s. 53 to be made an order of the Federal Court: Canadian Human Rights Act But I need to see the law before I agree that refusal to pay a civil penalty as ordered by the HRC will eventually constitute grounds for a criminal charge.

In any case, see exactly what discriminatory practices are defined as in sections 5-11 of the HRA: Canadian Human Rights Act Obviously the proscribed discriminatory practices have nothing to do with the private use of pronouns.

 

[icehorse]

I still don't think you are correct. Section 57 allows for an HRC order under s. 53 to be made an order of the Federal Court: Canadian Human Rights Act But I need to see the law before I agree that refusal to pay a civil penalty as ordered by the HRC will eventually constitute grounds for a criminal charge.

Up until this point I've been relying on the experts, but as time allows I'm taking up your challenge to dig through the laws myself. In any case, Jared Brown made this very specific claim in his testimony before the Senate committee (i.e. that failure to pay a fine can lead to a criminal contempt charge). I'm researching other parts of the law, although as I understand Brown's logic, some of this has to do with analyzing past patterns of these various agencies and how they interact.

One way I think I can summarize Brown (granting again that my research is ongoing), is:

Based on the past performance of the various government agencies involved, it would quite consistent for them to view failure to acquiesce to the pronoun demanded, as a hate crime.

BTW, the fact that speech-based "hate crimes" are being prosecuted at all, is in itself alarming.

 

[Nous]

In any case, Jared Brown made this very specific claim in his testimony before the Senate committee (i.e. that failure to pay a fine can lead to a criminal contempt charge.

Then let's assume he's correct about that. How does one conclude that someone (e.g., an employer) using the "wrong" pronoun amounts to a "discriminatory practice" as defined by the HRA?

You still haven't addressed the fact that the DOJ itself uses one of the "wrong" pronouns on its webpage explaining what the law means and does. Why don't you address that fact now?

If the law actually means that people (e.g., employers) are going to be fined or even thrown into prison for refusing to pay fines for using the "wrong" pronouns, then the DOJ webpage is one big lie. Right?