Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
This thread started talking about precedents quite a bit, so here is your chance to show me an actual precedent that shows this is how this law (that already existed long before it was amended by C16) has been interpreted in the way you are saying it could be.
|
This is a really good explanation about what the fuss is about.
https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/...-the-big-deal/
Quote:
What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination. Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory.
It is the OHRC policy requirement that persons must use the pronouns required by the portion of transgendered individuals making that demand that constitutes compelled speech.
|
As you can see, the problem isn't as much with the criminal code as with an order of a provincial human rights tribunal (which is understandably quite concerning for many people, as those tribunals vary from useful regulatory adjudicators to downright batcrap crazy). As set out in the link, there are actually multiple ways you could end up in jail through that process without ever being charged criminally.
As I said, though, I suspect that if that ever actually happened, you'd be able to successfully appeal the order. Frankly, I suspect you'd be able to get the initial ordered stayed pending an appeal. So again, while people like Jordan Peterson are *technically* right when they fearmonger about the bill, the practical reality is that those fears probably will never happen.
Of course, relying on appeals to correct the potentially tyrannical and obviously insane application of a piece of legislation is not a good way to draft legislation. It would be better to just ensure that the legislation contains its own protections by amending any statutes necessary to ensure that no appeal is ever necessary in the first place.