October 20, 2016

Conservative MPs back Liberal transgender bill that “criminalizes words”

Faith GoldyArchive

The federal Liberal transgender rights bill is one step closer to becoming law—but right now, it’s the sad state of the Conservative Party that I’m worried about. 

Thirty-eight Tory MPs backed the bill, even though C-16 has been a bill fuelled by feelings, not facts. The Tories have fallen for the Liberal trap.

The truth is: For the Liberal architects of this bill, its endgame was never about rape or assault. These busy-bodies are legislators; they know those rules are already on our books. 

No, what C-16 is really about is a war on language, about criminalizing words (pronouns, really), pronouns that correspond with a person’s biological sex.

This bill is really about signing away a portion of every Canadian’s God-given right to free speech.

The Tories are this country’s only hope for preservation of what’s good and right in our society, including the very bedrock freedoms upon which it was built.

But now, the Conservatives are bending like reeds to our Leftist overlords.

THEN author Jonathon Van Maren joins me to discuss his new book "The Culture War."

We talk about how the Sexual Revolution caught conservatives by surprise and how to fight back before it's too late. 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-10-20 23:23:28 -0400
Glenn Craig – here is the text – pleas note a legal definition of Gender identity or gender expression are not offered leaving this definition up to the tribunalists. It is impossible to determine what a criminal breech against undefined legal states of being is.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
R.‍S.‍, c. H-6
Canadian Human Rights Act
1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)
2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Good luck trying to determine if you are breeching a gender “expression” or “sexual identity” – without solid definitions virtually everyone is in criminal liability.
commented 2016-10-20 23:17:48 -0400
Like in the usa, republicans as our conservatives have had their true evils revealed. Stephen Harper, who I somewhat respected, was Spewed out of Gods mouth for his failure to stand up for the Slaughter of Gods unborn, and their endorsement of abortion and sodomy and sexual immorality, and if The Rebel will put this truth forward for the next 3 days, they will reveal their true intentions. Your souls are and everyones, under Judgement.
commented 2016-10-20 23:05:32 -0400
The danger is it’s simply bad law open to abuse. It marries federal criminal code penalties to transgressing subjective non physical “crimes” The definitions are nebulous and open the public to administrative abuse by malevolent litigants like section 13 did.

How can one determine the state of another’s prefered “identity” when this is a state of mentality not a physical state – you are holding people libel to criminal infraction for things that may not be evident to them.
Poory defined and thought out and dangerous to be interpreted by renforcers – I have to question the judgement of MPs who would pass dangerous law for virtue optics
commented 2016-10-20 22:52:37 -0400
Faith…please make note that I was involved in a five year court battle fending off adding…“those who advocate for women” being added to the list. And it was me who brought it to Ezra’s attention during his struggle with the HRCs that any white male…unless his grievance is related to sexual orientation or disability…when they tender a complaint at the HRC they recieve a boiler plate promulgation letter stating that they have no rights that the HRC deem worthy of protection and inherently THEY are the problem….
commented 2016-10-20 22:45:47 -0400
Faith I do see that the campus policies of universities might see it that way concerning pronouns…but I don’t see it in the bill in question….please show me where that is stated in the amendments tabled in parliament.
commented 2016-10-20 22:28:13 -0400
Freedom of speech is lost if the assholes in the Con party fall for this.
commented 2016-10-20 22:12:45 -0400
What a useless bunch of good for nothings.
commented 2016-10-20 21:56:44 -0400
Like many, I just want to get the government out of my life. The less government, the better.