CWHL welcoming a trangender player

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So you're saying the jury is out on genocide, and we should let people advocate for the extermination of a race of people?

I think that question is pretty well answered. That's what C16 does, it adds another vulnerable group to the list of people who's extermination we are no longer allowed to actively advocate for. You think that's a path of communication we should leave open?

It can also mean this.

Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression

Which can have broad interpretations.

[corporatejay]

No one is going to "pretend" to be a female so they can play CWHL. That's not rational.

These should be addressed on a case by case basis. If this persons is going through the therapy, living their life as a female etc... then that seems reasonable.

How many transgendered athletes are we talking about here, this isn't a rampant issue as of right now.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I think people should be left to decide what they think is right and wrong. I never think over policing by our government is a good thing. it only leads to bad things. Let people spout their hate, we don't have to listen to it. I do not hate anybody, I just think there is a road you go down that leads to oppression when you police what ppl say. Despite what the media wants to paint our society as or the victimhood mentality that is so prevalent, we do live in a very inclusive country and anyone I have ever seen spout overtly hateful things have been condemned by the majority of people. You need to give people the opportunity to decide what is right and what is wrong. it is how ideas are exchanged and allows society to evolve organically. This outrage culture we live in nowadays only serves to feed the Alt-Right. And it completely closes off paths of communication. Our country has never been more inclusive yet is has also never been more divided.

Canada is very undivided (Quebec excluded) except for people complaining about an inclusive country or SJW or whatever.

[Matata]

Canada's hate speech laws are garbage, I'd like to see them all get thrown out.

[zamler]

I'm bewildered how genocide should be a part of this conversation.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Canada is very undivided (Quebec excluded) except for people complaining about an inclusive country or SJW or whatever.

I disagree. When it comes to immigration and transgender issues for example, we are very divided.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Canada is very undivided (Quebec excluded) except for people complaining about an inclusive country or SJW or whatever.

Now, on this issue I agree with you, but in general I don't believe that. Canada is very me first who cares about others these days.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm bewildered how genocide should be a part of this conversation.

The law amends the Criminal Code by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318.[7][8] Section 318 makes it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, which now includes gender identity or gender expression. Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression.[9]

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

It can also mean this.

Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression

Which can have broad interpretations.

Can it?
Has it ever?
Can you show me one example that would be analogous to your position on transgender pronouns?

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.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I disagree. When it comes to immigration and transgender issues for example, we are very divided.

Oh Hi Ben

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

It can also mean this.

Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression

Which can have broad interpretations.

You aren't going to be charged with a crime for mis-identifying someone or using a wrong pro-noun once or even multiple times. If you run around screaming they are living an immoral life - you might.

Or to put it another way - you aren't going to charged with a crime unless you are being a jerk.

Confident this will change your life 0%. It might help another group.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

The law amends the Criminal Code by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318.[7][8] Section 318 makes it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, which now includes gender identity or gender expression. Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression.[9]

Ah, I see. So if a person says that anyone who refers to themselves as ZeeWeebleZooDiddle needs to die, then that's a hate crime.

Is that right?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Now, on this issue I agree with you, but in general I don't believe that. Canada is very me first who cares about others these days.

In comparison to other countries?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

hopefully sometime soon, the day will come when we don't have to.

Yeah but until then, this is kind of a landmark for hockey, isn't it?

And nobody ever said of Neil Armstrong "hopefully sometime soon, the day will come when we don't have to discuss men on the moon".

(I'm not calling you out, btw Inglewood - just a general observation)

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I think it is ridiculous. Everybody nowadays wants to have their cake and eat it too. It is sick how society and mainstream media are enabling a mental disorder called gender dysphoria. I don't give a flying #### if this is not PC enough. I believe in science not feelings.

And this affects you how?

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Can it?
Has it ever?
Can you show me one example that would be analogous to your position on transgender pronouns?

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld some elements against hate speech in Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code while striking down others on Feb. 27 in the latest case to pit free speech against hate propaganda laws — a sometimes blurry line that is a legal, political, ethical and emotional minefield.
Bill Whatcott was charged with promoting hate after he distributed flyers in Regina and Saskatoon in 2001 and 2002 that condemned gay sex as immoral.
He was found guilty by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2005, but that decision was later appealed and overturned in 2010. The tribunal then appealed to the country's top court.
On Wednesday, a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court found that most of Saskatchewan's human rights code was constitutional. The legislation infringes the right to free speech and religion, but the court found it was a reasonable limit.
The court struck down the part of the legislation that includes speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity" of a person or class of persons. The court found those words are not rationally connected to the objective of protecting people from hate speech.
The court left in place the ban on speech that exposes, or tends to expose, persons or groups to hatred.
Whatcott published and distributed four anti-gay flyers in Saskatchewan that used words like "filth," "propaganda" and "sodomy" to describe gay relationships and discussions of equality.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that the first two flyers, titled "Keep homosexuality out of Saskatoon's public schools" and "Sodomites in our public schools," did constitute hate speech and reinstated the Saskatchewan tribunal's finding, including $7,500 in fines against Whatcott.
The Court upheld an appeal court's decision on the second two flyers — photocopies of classified ads with Whatcott's handwritten comments on them stating the ads were for "men seeking boys" — ruling against the human rights commission.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by the2bears

And this affects you how?

I have children in sports. It is not a precedent I would like to see set. I would not like to see them in competition with the opposite sex as it pertains to physical sports.

[mennoknight]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Canada is very undivided (Quebec excluded) except for people complaining about an inclusive country or SJW or whatever.

You should mention that to Aboriginal people

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You aren't going to be charged with a crime for mis-identifying someone or using a wrong pro-noun once or even multiple times. If you run around screaming they are living an immoral life - you might.

Or to put it another way - you aren't going to charged with a crime unless you are being a jerk.

Confident this will change your life 0%. It might help another group.

I am always bewildered by our countries citizens compliance to our freedoms being taken away. "Being a jerk". To who's standards? where are the goal posts. Why should someone else set the standard as to what a jerk is? To me, a 6 foot 200 lf man who decides to use the ladies washroom because he identifies as a male would be considered a jerk. Yet he is completely in his legal right to do so and if I even question him I can be fired. It is all subjective. If someone physically assaults someone that is a tangible thing with clear boundaries, it cannot be left up to interpretation. Speech and how much people are affected by it is subjective and in my eyes cannot be enforced without infringing on simple freedoms.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Move to off topic section? Hahah