CWHL welcoming a trangender player

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

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.

Wait, so I asked you for an example of a precident that would change how you speak and you show me a case where the follwoing happened:

1) the SC struck down the parts that would probably be considered just dick moves "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity"
2) upheld the provisions that protect groups from specfic hate speech, in this case flyers

How does that affect you?
It's pretty clear just refusing to use pronouns wouldn't be afffected, it's actively promoting hate that's a problem. Are you distributing hate literature? That's what your posts are implying.
I assume you aren't, so maybe you should stop trying to prove how C16 will affect you, because it's not painting a great picture.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

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/

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.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Who knows how the law can be interpreted. Calling someone by the pronouns I think are I should use may be considered inciting hate.

Who knows? Maybe the courts? Those institutions that have been deciding such questions in a (more or less) fair, reasonable and principled way for hundreds of years?

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

Neither would you using tired old lines like that. Come up with better material.

Haha wasn’t trying to be funny. It was an opionion, same people arguing the same points, different thread title.

[Makarov]

Let’s just be clear here as well. Human Rights Codes do not regulate your activities while in your own home or just walking down the street, etc. They may however regulate your behaviour if you offer services to the public or if you are an employer.

Also, I have seen many cases (and read dozens) of HRTO orders being flagrantly disregarded. I am not aware of anyone, in the history of the Tribunal, being ordered to prison for contempt of such.

[Insane_Flame]

I just don't see how it is fair to infringe on my freedoms of not wanting to be a part of a certain ideology. I believe there are two genders. Genders and sex are on and the same to me. if you want to believe something else go for it. To me it is a made up social construct that is not backed up by any credible science aside from the miniscule amount of people who are actually born intersex. I am not telling anyone else how to speak or what terminology they should use, don't tell me.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As I said, though, I suspect that if that ever actually happened, you'd be able to successfully appeal the order.

I'm sure you could but by then your life would be ruined. You'd be "that transphobe" or whatever and never get a job again.

[the2bears]

Do people not realize how slippery the slope is? Nor how steep? Indeed, or just how many such slopes there are?

I know every generation has had the same complaints, but *this* time they're real. Everything we hold dear is so tenuously balanced that even the simple act of showing a person respect, respect that quite frankly we do not know if they even deserve(!), can be the little push that sends us plummeting. Falling for all eternity.

So, be careful.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Let’s just be clear here as well. Human Rights Codes do not regulate your activities while in your own home or just walking down the street, etc. They may however regulate your behaviour if you offer services to the public or if you are an employer.

Also, I have seen many cases (and read dozens) of HRTO orders being flagrantly disregarded. I am not aware of anyone, in the history of the Tribunal, being ordered to prison for contempt of such.

What if it infringes on their religious beliefs? Like that case down south, the decision to fine that bakery for not making a cake was upheld. I think it is far more reasonable to ask them to go to another bakery, I am sure there is more than 1, than to ask someone to corrupt their belief system.

[Makarov]

Just want to clarify: I’m not saying that someone can’t reasonably criticize these amendments to the federal Human Rights Code (which, incidentally, only applies to activities in federal Constitutional heads of power) or provincial Human Rights Code. I’m just saying that “I might go to jail for using the wrong pronoun” is not such a reasonable criticism.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm sure you could but by then your life would be ruined. You'd be "that transphobe" or whatever and never get a job again.

Exactly, someone accused of rape or murder and proven innocent are tainted for life. This is why the whole, "just believe them" movement is god awful. What ever happened to due process?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

What if it infringes on their religious beliefs? Like that case down south, the decision to fine that bakery for not making a cake was upheld. I think it is far more reasonable to ask them to go to another bakery, I am sure there is more than 1, than to ask someone to corrupt their belief system.

What if, in the bakery case, you substitute the couple for a heterosexual one, but inter-racial or of a minority. Is it then okay to ask them to go to another business? Anyone can say it's against their religion, so why not? "It's against my religion to serve 'their' kind."

I think, though, that having a license for a business entails some responsibilities as well as rights. I consider not discriminating to be one of those responsibilities.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

What if it infringes on their religious beliefs? Like that case down south, the decision to fine that bakery for not making a cake was upheld. I think it is far more reasonable to ask them to go to another bakery, I am sure there is more than 1, than to ask someone to corrupt their belief system.

What does baking cakes have to do with one’s religion? Is there any religion that has ever forbidden baking cakes for a particular group (or infidels)?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Reading I don't know what the players think is, coming from the guy who presumes to say what is/isn't fair to a group he knows exactly as much about as I do is pretty rich!

I didn't make any statements about what the players think, or how many are in favor, I just pointed out the fact that, as expected, people with no information, connection, or interest in this league are making statements about what is/isn't fair to it's members.

I think people being people, the women will be okay with transgenders playing as long as they are average or worse players.

If a transgender comes in and dominates the field, the other women in the league won't like it one bit.

It must be incredibly frustrating and unfair for women to have to compete against biological men in sports. In the Olympics in the 400/800 meters, there were two female sprinters born with male level hormones. You could tell the other women were infuriated by it, but didn't want to say anything too negative in the media.

You could say that in both the cases of the Olympic sprinters, and transgenders, they both were filled with male hormones that they didn't ask for or want. So it's a similar situation in regards to letting them compete against other women.

Although in the transgender situation I believe they have to take female hormones to bring their test level down to their competitors level, so transgender vs female competition might actually be more fair than that of female vs female with naturally occurring high testosterone.

This is a tough issue for me, because whether you let the genetically advantaged compete or not, it seems like either decision is unfair to one group or the other. One side will be getting the shaft.....can I say that in a transgender thread?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm sure you could but by then your life would be ruined. You'd be "that transphobe" or whatever and never get a job again.

No, you wouldn't, for the following reason.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Also, I have seen many cases (and read dozens) of HRTO orders being flagrantly disregarded. I am not aware of anyone, in the history of the Tribunal, being ordered to prison for contempt of such.

As set out above, what's technically possible under the legislation and what's likely to actually happen in real life are two very different things. An order from a tribunal for failing to call someone their preferred pronoun, if it was even made against you at all, is very unlikely to significantly affect you.

Originally Posted by Makarov

I’m just saying that “I might go to jail for using the wrong pronoun” is not such a reasonable criticism.

Correct. "This legislation should be better written so that it's not even technically possible for someone to go to jail for using the wrong pronoun" is a more reasonable one.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

In comparison to other countries?

I don't know, and frankly don't care about other countries, but I don't think Canada is as unified as people think.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Insane_Flame

I just don't see how it is fair to infringe on my freedoms of not wanting to be a part of a certain ideology. I believe there are two genders. Genders and sex are on and the same to me. if you want to believe something else go for it. To me it is a made up social construct that is not backed up by any credible science aside from the miniscule amount of people who are actually born intersex. I am not telling anyone else how to speak or what terminology they should use, don't tell me.

Again, how is this doing that?
You can believe whatever you like, that is still legal.

All you've done in this thread is decry how C16 is going to force you to do something you don't want to do.
First it was speech, but when it was rightfully pointed out that the only way that's true is if you are actively spewing hate speech. So you moved on from that and now you think you'll have to change how you think?

I mean, yeah, I hope you eventually do change how you think, but you have a profound misunderstanding of C16 if you think it's forcing you to do so.

[zamler]

So if the legislation is so toothless why does it exist. As for the bakery yes I think it is within the rights of business owners not to make a product that goes against their religious or moral beliefs.

IIRC that couple was fined $125,000 for their refusal that's a complete abuse of the justice system.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I mean, yeah, I hope you eventually do change how you think, but you have a profound misunderstanding of C16 if you think it's forcing you to do so.

Are you a legal expert?

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Although in the transgender situation I believe they have to take female hormones to bring their test level down to their competitors level, so transgender vs female competition might actually be more fair than that of female vs female with naturally occurring high testosterone.

Nope, not even close. Regardless of testosterone levels, someone who went through puberty as a man is going to have a mans hands, shoulders and hips which all have a huge mechanical advantage in terms of generating speed and power, plus they would have the muscle base they developed while having a mans testosterone level. Mens brains are also wired in a way that's more conducive to physical activity (reaction times and spacial reasoning being the big ones here).

[Makarov]

And technically, by operation of sections 265 and 266 of the Criminal Code, I could be sentenced to 5 years of custody for patting someon on the back who did not consent to such patting. Is that a reasonable criticism of the Criminal Code in your view?