58

Transgendered after party on the Hill


 

After Bill C-389, which adds gender identity and gender expression to the Canada Human Rights Act, passed last week NDP MP Bill Siksay (below, left) hosted an after party.

.

Liberal MP Rob Oliphant (right).

.

(L-R) NDP MPs Peter Julian, Fin Donnely, Libby Davies, Dennis Bevington.


 

Transgendered after party on the Hill

  1. They might as well enjoy it while they can, because the Senate will likely kill the bill.

  2. I'm sorry, but I just don't think Canadians support this agenda.

    • Canadians support the Constitution and Charter of Rights, which is essentially what this is about.

      • It says in the Charter that we have to give special rights to people who want to change their sexual organs? Again, I don't think Canadians buy it, which is why it has to be shoved through the courts — like most of the social liberal agenda.

        • All Canadians are equal under the law.

          Live with it.

          • Sure. But I don't believe in giving out special rights that do nothing but legitimize and protect certain social lifestyles.

          • There are no special grights, they're just added to the already existing list.

        • No, you're right, it doesn't. It says that people with certain vulnerabilities cannot be discriminated against because of those vulnerabilities.

          From the bill itself:
          This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
          This enactment also amends the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318 and as aggravating factors to be taken into consideration under section 718.2 at the time of sentencing.

          • Right. They want special recognition and protection.

            a) I don't see a crisis. What I do see is a social agenda being forced on us.

            b) Why not give special rights to anyone who wants it? People who have fetishes, swipe wives, and so on? When does this social agenda ever end?

          • no.

          • No, as a group they receive special recognition and dangerous attention from maladjusted, insecure phobic little people who subject them to all kinds of discrimination, ranging from social slights, to unmerited workplace inequality to direct verbal and physical attacks. As a minority group that has been singled out and abused, they are singled out and protected by the law.

            In fact, my belief is that the amendment was unnecessary. If they had been treated improperly as defined by the laws involved, I don't think an explicit listing of their particular profile in the law would have been required to prosecute. Sometimes, however, these things are seen as important symbols and as a direct warning.

          • a) I don't see this mass persecution that you're talking about.

            b) Does every group that wants to be different have to do so under specific Charter protection? What's next? Chronic masturbators? They need protection!

          • Dennis, may I ask if you habitually make the company of gay or transgendered individuals? If you do, then you are willfully blind. If not, as I suspect is the case, then perhaps you should do some investigation of the issue.

          • Why do I need to acquaint myself with people of certain sexual lifestyles? Why does your side always try to make this a personal thing against me or other people who disagree with you? Do you know of anyone who disagrees with your agenda on moral grounds. If not, do you need more investigation? Geez.

            Anyhow, I recently learned of someone who I knew in high school that is now gay. Left his wife and three children to shack up with a younger man. I don't dislike the guy. I don't think he's a monster. At the same time, I don't agree with the road he's taken. Why is dissent on this social agenda not allowed?

          • I asked because you said you didn't see mass persecution and then took it ad absurdium to ridicule the concept.

            I asked, because the persecution, the discrimination and hate is real. That your entire exposure to anything n the down low is someone you knew in high school and your reaction is of disapproval rather than empathy says everything anyone objectively following this conversation needs to know.

            The only "agenda" in play by the law's proponents is to protect against violence, discrimination and hate. Your agenda speaks for itself.

          • Where is this mass persecution you keep alluding to?

            and your reaction is of disapproval rather than empathy says everything anyone objectively following this conversation needs to know.

            lol, why am I suppose to "empathize" with someone who's taken a road I don't agree with? Why are people like you so eager to thrust your agenda on others? Why do I have to feel the way you do?

            How dare you suggest I support violence, discrimination, and hate. Why? Because I dare disagree with your sexual agenda? Wow, what times we live in.

          • Nowhere do I suggest you support violence, discrimination or hate. I will use your own sophomoric rhetorical device and demand in high dudgeon where I ever said you did?

            No, if I were to play your game and ascribe an agenda to you – something you feel free to do with everyone else but to which you take great exception when you perceive it to be done to you – I would say that your agenda is to be the spokesperson for the willfully ignorant; the willfully blind; and the willfully unsympathetic. I would observe from your body of "work" here that if something doesn't conform to your limited, carefully prescribed worldview, it is either dangerous, unnecessary or immoral.

            personally, I am always stunned when I meet someone who professes a moral code based on Christian teachings who has difficulty loving his neighbour however he finds him.

          • Matt. 25:31-46

          • Unless you subscribe to this alternate interpretation

            An alternative interpretation, one found by Calvinist theologian John Gill, is that the disadvantaged men spoken of are actually fellow Christians. Instead of the division between blessed and cursed being based on good works, it is based on one's response to the people and message of Christ's Church.

            Thanks Wiki.

          • I hadn't seen either of these versions before. However, after reading the link you provided and others, I have to reply "no". to your question. I don't subscribe to it. In fact, I think it is exactly that kind of revisionist exclusivity practiced by some that has warped the basic teachings of love. Christ hadn't founded Christianity in his own time. When he spoke of loving your neighbour, he meant everyone. At least, that is a basic understanding of how I have internalized my upbringing.

          • When I posted that alternate interpretation, I was 53% serious and 47% jesting, but I certainly appreciate your serious response.

            Christ hadn't founded Christianity in his own time. When he spoke of loving your neighbour, he meant everyone.

            Yeah, that is a logical fallacy of some magnitude, isn't it. Btw, nice use of proper English spelling (ie neighbour).

          • I really wish Dennis would come back and play, but he seems to lose interest …

          • When the bait fails to land the intended catch, some fishers move on to the next spot where they may have had past (and therefore hopefully future) successes.

          • This is the second string in the last little while where he has taken his ball and gone home. No doubt he feels he has nothing more to say to a pip squeak mind like mine, but it doesn't seem to stop him from carrying on ad nauseum elsewhere when his deflection gambits and other simplistic debating tricks keep resutling in little firestorms.

          • Yup. I'd wager that firestorms are the intention.

          • One of the listed groups is religion, and goodness knows they have a never-ending social agenda. However, we don't need a situation like N Ireland either, so they are specifically mentioned.

          • I don't want to protect anyone who's looking to swipe wives.

            On a serious note, no one is forcing any social agenda — they're simply looking to protect peoples' rights. Being transgender isn't a "social lifestyle" anymore than being straight or gay is a social lifestyle, whatever that term actually means. It's simply a fact of life for people who are born transgendered.

          • Lady GaGa is now your source for this social agenda, is she? lol

          • Um no, she's a singer. Haven't heard of her being elected to any office.

          • I think it is forcing a social agenda. You can't convince people otherwise, so you have to call it a "right" and bully people who dare disagree with it.

          • What "special rights" are wife-swipers seeking?

          • I'm not sure who's next at the table, but it'll be someone.

          • Just as long as it isn't small-minded religious busybodies, we'll be fine.

          • People like you believe in tolerance and rights for everyone except those that don't adhere to your social agenda, including Christians. Lovely.

          • LOL it's the religious busybodies that don't adhere to any philosophy of tolerance.

          • That's a viciously bigoted comment, and so typical. Thanks for continuing to expose your agenda.

          • LOL if the shoe fits Dennis….

          • Emily there's no one on this blog that's more bigoted than you with anyone that doesn't agree with you.
            No one should be unfairly discriminated against. That's already in the charter. To start categorizing every walk of life, real or made up only serves to create a wider and wider chasm. And that's what the charter has turned into. It's become a joke.
            And I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent.

          • I guess we can take your religion out then.

        • Ah the old "special" rights chestnut. Equal, Dennis. Everyone must be treated equally under the constitution.

  3. Thanks Mitchell, for clarifying which side the MPs were standing on.. goodness knows how I would have managed to figure it out otherwise. :)

  4. Was this really necessary? Did you just contribute to the greater good? Do you feel better about yourself?

    Rather than report your coarse, ignorant comments, I'm content to have them stand next to your name and reflect on you and what you stand for so people can guage the worth of your judgement.

    • For the record, James Halifax made the remarks I commented on and which have subsequently been removed by the administrator. They were offensive, to be sure, but I wish they had be allowed to stand for the reasons I stated above.

      As hurtful and personal as the remarks were, censoring them did JH a favour by removing them from the considweration and judgement of others.

  5. I was doing some work during the evening news when this bill was being discussed. I forget which channel it was, perhaps CTV, but it included some soundbite from a religious group calling this the "Bathroom Bill" and referencing sketchy characters populating our nations showers and toilets with our children.

    I vividly remember thinking to myself, "that's a clever soundbite, it'll probably distract the population from the intent of this bill". And then I looked over at my wife, sister, and brother-in-law who were intently watching the story. For the next 20 minutes they had a very heated discussion on just how horrible it was that men were going to be allowed into women's washrooms, and that if any man tried to have a shower with their little girl there'd be hell to pay.

    And I realized two things: 1) I've somehow, at some point in the past few years, become immune to Parliamentary rhetoric, and 2) rhetorical diversions remain incredibly powerful as a diversionary device to people who don't regularly pay attention to politics.

    • The 'bathroom argument' was the same one used in the US years ago to stop the ERA. I had hoped we were past that kind of silliness.

    • Your conclusions hit home.

  6. It gets complicated when you have an "in between" gender. UBC installed additional washrooms on campus specifically for transgendered/sexual folk – end of problem.

    On one hand you have to acknowledge that this is a vunerable group, often targets of hate crimes. On the other, will this Bill create all kinds of new demands?

    • When my relatives complained about the 'bathroom issue', I merely highlighted that most public places, these days, have a unisex 'family' bathroom that could easily avoid the entire problem.

      The whole argument was hilarious, as far as I was concerned. Do you let your young boy shower with strange men in public places? Do you allow your young girl to shower with strange women in public places? How does this change anything about how the world currently operates? The rhetoric, and people's reaction to it, was incredible.

  7. First…the admin removed my comments because someone’s feelings may have been hurt. Too bad, that’s life, get used to it. That’s what the Charter has given us. Some invisible nobody, now has the power to remove comments that may hurt the feelings of others. I don’t care if people use my comments to attack me, because I think that is THEIR right, and I don’t want to infringe upon them. Obviously, MacLeans thinks people are too sensitive.

    Second:
    “Jen wrote:
    “It’s simply a fact of life for people who are born transgendered.”

    Sorry, Jen. People are born Straight, or GAY. It’s genetic, and brain scans of gay individuals bear this out.

    As for transgendered, sorry……that’s just messed up. These are people that suffer some sort of psychological problem.

    Again, go to genetics:
    xy – you’re a dude. (you may be gay, but you’re still a dude)
    xx- your a female (you may be gay…but you’re still a female)

    Transgendered:
    xx – you’re a female. It doesn’t matter what they sew on to you, or how many hormones you’re taking to grow whiskers, or bulk up….you’re a woman. Wearing a suit doesn’t change that.
    XY – you’re a dude. It doesn’t matter what they cut off, or how many hormones you suck back….you’re still a dude. Only, as above shows, you’re clearly a dude in a dress.

  8. Be_rad.
    As for my original comments, obviously the folks at MacLeans are being a little overly sensitive (never an issue with me, you right note).

    I’ll try and say the same thing more tactfully.
    Ahem: That’s a lot of “Unattractive” people to fit in one room.
    And then: I always suspected that Libby Davies started out as the opposite sex that she claims to be now.

    Let’s see if the censors still tag me.

    • Thank you for rectifying what I believe was an error on the part of the administrator. I'm pleased to see you stand by your words, and wallow in the odious nature of them.

  9. Be_rad wrote:
    "Thank you for rectifying what I believe was an error on the part of the administrator. I'm pleased to see you stand by your words, and wallow in the odious nature of them."

    No problem be_rad, as I think censorship is far more odius than any comments I have made on this site. If people are going to hate me, or cast dispersions, let them. I care not a whit.

    As for "wallow in the odious nature of them"….I don't wallow, I just state my opinion. Disagree or not….you should have the right to judge me by my comments.

    I also have that right, and have exercised it here on many occassions. The only thing that irks me, is seeing someone who's comments have been deleted.

    • For goodness sake, JamesHalifax, do you have some religious-conviction against using the 'reply' button on a post?

  10. Leo wrote: (with regard to bathroom requirements)

    "On one hand you have to acknowledge that this is a vunerable group, often targets of hate crimes. On the other, will this Bill create all kinds of new demands? "

    Wait for it, Leo.
    If this Bill goes through as is, you can be sure there will immediately be lawsuits launched against every restaurant in Canada for not providing a "transgendered" facility for the men in skirts, or the ladies with moustaches.

    Wait for it.

    • James, what you don't know about biology could fill a book.

      In fact you tried to write one here, but it's still wrong.

      The LGBTI community needs to be listed precisely BECAUSE of misinformation like this.

  11. I think that I'm a few years younger than you (not too many mind you), but I'll go to my grave (well, actually the crematorium furnace, but that's another story) inserting u's wherever I can get away with it! :-)

  12. EMily

    Actually, Emily….I've studied biology extensively. I'm rather familiar with the subject.

    But hey….if you want to think that….fill yer boots.

    The "BTI" portion of the "LGBTI" community is a manufactured community.

    They're just people…….but some of them are screwed up. Most likely by folks like you who let them believe they are somehow living in the wrong body.

    By the way…thanks for reminding me.

    Bisexuals – gay men and women who sleep with the opposite sex on occassion.

Sign in to comment.