Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
This is such an absurd mischaracterization of Bill C-16. It makes meaningful discussion so difficult. You should really read the Canadian Bar Association's letter in support to the Senate Committee. It provides an excellent summary of the actual effects of the amendments. It's easily found via google.
|
I agree with you - DiracSpike's explanation of what that bill does, as well as Jordan Peterson's explanation - is not a realistic reflection of its impact. However, mechanically, the steps are there by which a person could,
in theory, be subjected to legal repercussions (including, potentially, jail time) for failing to address someone by their chosen pronoun. That is to say, if you follow the provisions through to the OHRC policy documents in a sort of connect-the-dots manner, you can see where they get this concern from.
There are two questions that then arise from this.
First, in practice, would anything of the kind ever occur if Bill C-16 were enacted? My response is no, for a variety of reasons, most important being that any such legislation would be read down so as to minimally infringe peoples' rights particularly because of what a non-starter compelled speech is in Charter jurisprudence.
Second, as a matter of policy, should Parliament avoid enacting legislation that could on its face (even if it's through a series of unlikely, nuanced, technical steps that wouldn't hold up in Court in the remote case where they actually came to be used) produce an outcome like the one DiracSpike is worried about? I'm somewhat less sure about that one. I think it's probably fair for Parliament to say, "Canadians can presume that any legislation we pass is intended to be constitutionally valid, so interpret it as such wherever possible."