Category: Human Rights

Discussions on human rights, with a particular focus on gender identity and sexual orientation.

  • Homophobia and transphobia is why PC’s repealed sex ed

    Homophobia and transphobia is why PC’s repealed sex ed

    On July 11th 2018 the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (PCs) followed through on a campaign promise rid Ontario of the 2015 sexual education curriculum. Come September, students would be taught the 1998 curriculum.

    The 2015 curriculum included content about consent, online bullying, and LGBT realities. None of these were present in the 1998 curriculum, which was devised years before same-sex marriage became legal, when the Ontario government still funded conversion therapy for trans youth, and before Google or even MySpace were founded.

    Progressive Conservatives have maintained that this move had nothing to do with homophobia and transphobia. This article demonstrates those assertions to be false.

    Introduction of 2015 curriculum

    In 2007, the Liberal government started the process of updating the 1998 sex ed curriculum. What followed was two years of consultation with 700 students, 70 organizations and more than 2,400 people. Among the organizations who helped develop the content was the Ontario Institute for Catholic Education, which works on behalf of the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario, the organisation that decides what’s Catholic in Ontario Catholic schools. Then in April of 2010, the government announced they would roll out the curriculum in the fallThe curriculum was 208 pages long as compared to the 42 pages for the 1998 curriculum.

    A movement formed to oppose it, including on the grounds that it mentioned gender identity and sexual orientation:

    “Christian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation. He accused the Premier of listening to “special interest groups with an agenda,” including former education minister Kathleen Wynne, who is openly gay.”

    Following this backlash, the government scrapped the revised sex ed curriculum.

    In 2014, the Liberal government picked it back up and sent a survey to 4,000 parents as added consultation. In February of 2015, the curriculum was ready. It was now 239 pages long. By this point, the 1998 curriculum was now the oldest sex ed curriculum in Canada. The Liberal government declared that it would introduce the new curriculum for September.

    Among the changes, in Grade 1, children would learn the proper names for their body parts. In Grade 3, children would learn that some people had gay parents. In Grade 6, they’d learn that masturbation isn’t shameful. In Grade 8, they’d learn about gender identity. In Grade 9, they’d learn about staying safe online. The 2015 curriculum can be downloaded here in full.

    Protests ensued. One set of parents organized a student strike:

    The group Ontario Parents and Students Strike put a notification letter online for parents to send to schools. The group also operates a Facebook page, “Parents & students on strike: one week no school,” which has more than 7,500 likes.

    The notification letter says the parents object to curriculum material, which it says is “age-inappropriate” and does not “align with the principles and beliefs of our family, and thousands of other families across Ontario.”

    Homophobia and transphobia were rife in the opposition to the curriculum. As one parent explained at the time:

    Kimberly Cormier, another mother at the protest, told VICE News it’s the parts of the curriculum that discuss gender identity and LGBTQ issues that trouble her most. “We don’t need to tell the kids about transsexual, two-spirited-ness. Actually, I don’t want to use this terminology because the kids are present here today. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to protect them from,” she said.

    Likewise, as a letter to the Toronto Star asserted:

    “It will teach Gay-Trans propaganda starting in grade 1 [age 6]. Destroy the idea of gender, natural law, heterosexual family normalcy. You choose your gender.”

    The disdain towards trans people was also evident in the mass-produced posters of the time:

    Protesters in 2015 for the new sex ed curriculum. One sign reads “Rights to change change gender, but No Rights to choose education?”

    PC Party of Ontario from 2011 – 2018

    When the revised curriculum was introduced in 2010, the PC Party of Ontario was openly homophobic. For instance, in 2011, PC Leader Tim Hudak defended his party distributing misleading anti-gay flyers:

    Then in 2012, the PC Party opposed the Accepting Schools Act, which would put an end to the ban of student run LGBT-oriented clubs in Ontario Catholic Schools. The bill ultimately passed without their support.

    But then something changed.

    In 2012, NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced Toby’s Act to recognize gender identity and expression in the Ontario Human Rights Act. She had introduced it since 2007 but it never became law. Liberal MPP Yasir Naqvi of the Liberals and PC MPP Christine Elliott co-sponsored the 2012 bill. This time, it passed.

    In 2015, NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo introduced another bill to ban conversion therapy in Ontario. The PC Party supported the bill. It passed.

    In 2016, NDP Cheri DiNovo introduced yet another bill so that same-sex parents would not have to adopt their own children. The PC’s supported the bill unanimously, though, half of the members were not there. This suggested that the progressive stance of the party was led by their leadership.

    In 2016, PC Leader Patrick Brown made the following statement in support of the 2015 sex ed curriculum:

    I strongly support an updated curriculum that takes into account changing attitudes and the world in which children now dwell. They are being asked to understand challenging topics in ways their parents were not. It is important to have sex education to combat homophobia, and raise important issues like consent, mental health, bullying, and gender identity. The world has changed and so should the curriculum.

    Then in January 2018, Patrick Brown resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct. This was months before the Ontario election. The PC’s started a leadership race.

    Lead-up to 2018 Ontario election

    In the PC leadership race, there were four contenders. Two were socially progressive: Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney. Two were socially conservative: Doug Ford and Tanya Granic Allen.

    Tanya Granic Allen is the president of Parents As First Educators (PAFE), which bills itself as a “leader in the fight” against a “radical sex-ed curriculum in Ontario.” When she entered the race, the Toronto Star published the headline “Opponent of Ontario’s sex ed curriculum enters PC leadership race“.

    Granic Allen’s homophobia and transphobia was well documented. On a PAFE blog entry written by her, she warned against “influencing young children in the classroom to be accepting of transgenderism” and in another linked to a text called “Gender Ideology Harms Children“. She asked her readers to oppose the trans rights bill. On a television, Granic Allen was saying that same-sex marriage was causing the “demise of society.”

    To little surprise, Tanya Granic Allen brought up sex ed repeatedly during leadership debates. She stated she would speak for people who oppose “the Kathleen Wynne sex-ed agenda“. She slammed the bill that banned conversion therapy. She did not appear to speak to any other issue, as this exchange between Steve Paikin, the moderator of the leadership debate, and Granic Allen demonstrates:

    “What else in education today needs improving that you’ve got your eye on?” asked Paikin. “Sex ed isn’t going to improve math scores, so tell me about something else.”

    Granic Allen’s reply: “Maybe they will focus more on math if they’re not talking about anal sex in the classroom.”

    Throughout the leadership debates, Doug Ford and Tanya Granic Allen became a team, often supporting each other’s points in opposition to the two institutional candidates. Granic Allen had little chance to win the PC leadership but nonetheless had a base, with her support critical for Ford’s leadership race win.

    Doug Ford won the leadership race. He vowed to repeal sex-ed. He appointed Tanya Granic Allen to run as the PC candidate in Mississauga Centre. She was later ousted, after much resistance from Ford, over a speech from 2014 surfacing in which she said sex ed and same-sex marriage made her want to vomit. The PC Party of Ontario was ready for the Ontario election.

    On June 7th 2018, Doug Ford was elected the new premier of Ontario. The Liberals, who had governed the province for the previous fifteen years, lost official party status. NPD MPP Cheri DiNovo left politics. Liberal MPP Yasir Naqvi lost his seat. Charles McVety, the religious leader who claims that “homosexuals prey on children” and who opposed the sex ed curriculum from its inception, was invited to Doug Ford’s throne speech.

    Post-election events

    Following the election, supporters and opponents made their voices heard.

    A petition was put together by supporters of the 2015 curriculum asking the government not to repeal the updated sex ed. Over 50,000 signatures were collected.

    Meanwhile, opponents were vocal too. The National Post ran an op-ed by Barbara Kay on July 3rd advocating for the repeal:

    “Much of what children are learning about transgenderism today, at a very tender age, is not science-based, but activist-dictated theory that can result in psychological harm.”

    “The doubt-encouraging “Genderbread” charts, which attempt to explain differences between gender identity, sexual preference and biological sex and have been brought into Ontario classrooms by some teachers, should disappear altogether.”

    “If they believe in social-engineering theories, let progressive parents teach their kids “social construction” and “gender fluidity” at home.”

    Repeal of 2015 curriculum

    On July 11th, 2018, the Minister for Education, PC MPP Lisa Thompson, announced that the government would rid the province of the 2015 sex education curriculum.

    “The sex-ed component is going to be reverted back to the manner in which it was prior to the changes that were introduced by the Liberal government,” Ms. Thompson said. “We’re going to be moving very swiftly in our consultations, and I will be sharing with you our process in the weeks to come.”

    This was the same MPP who had opposed legislation that would end the ban on LGBT-themed clubs by Catholic Ontario schools.

    Immediately following the news of the sex ed repeal, a conservative publication ran the headline “Doug Ford’s repeal of radical sex ed is the beginning of victory for parents in the transgender wars“.

    There were protests by supporters of the sex ed curriculum. Educators, such as the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, released statements opposing the repeal. However, it is telling to look at the views post-repeal of those who wanted that sex ed curriculum gone.

    The July 15th demonstration by supporters of the 2015 sex ed curriculum in Ottawa was disrupted by a group of white nationalists.

    The Globe & Mail published a piece by Debra Soh called “Ontario’s sex-ed backlash isn’t about children’s safety” stating that:

    “The curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender identity is socially constructed.”

    “A curriculum that teaches gender fluidity is misleading and will impair a child’s ability to have an accurate understanding of the world.”

    On CBC News, Barbara Kay was invited to speak on the sex ed repeal. She stated that teaching about gender identity was child abuse. On Twitter, she also alleged that trans people were “body snatching kids”:

    A National Post op-ed by Marni Soupcoff cited the article “The New Sex-Ed Curriculum Would Have Saved Me From Torment Growing Up” by a gay man and the opinion of a dad who lost his daughter to bullying that “the 2015 sex ed curriculum could have saved my daughter” when she called such responses to sex ed “sad and misguided.”

    Government response following repeal

    There was tremendous negative media attention on the sex ed repeal, including internationally from Time Magazine and the BBC. On July 16th, the education minister Lisa Thompson stated the repeal would only be partial and continue including gender identity and cyber safety:

    “We know they need to learn about consent,” she said at the legislature. “We know they need to learn about cyber safety, we know they need to learn about gender identity and appreciation. But we also know that the former Liberal government’s consultation process was completely flawed.”

    A short time later, Thompson told reporters that only a portion of the curriculum will be rolled back, not the entire document.

    “What we’ll be looking at is the developing sexual relations,” she said. “That’s the part in the curriculum that we’ll be taking a look at.”

    Hours later, her office released the following retraction – there would not be a partial repeal that left in gender identity and cyber safety:

    “While these consultations occur, we are reverting to the full health and physical education curriculum that was last taught in 2014.”

    As the backlash continued, Lisa Thompson attempted to present the 1998 curriculum as the “2014 curriculum”, reflecting the last year the 1998 curriculum was taught. This was presumably to improve the optics of substituting the 2015 curriculum with one from 1998. Take this interview with her on July 26th:

    Q: Okay straighten out the confusion about what curriculum is going to be taught in September?

    A: In September teachers will be using the 2014 curriculum.

    Q: But that’s based on the 1998 curriculum, it’s the same curriculum is it not?

    A: Teachers are going to be familiar with the curriculum they are using because they utilized it in 2014.

    Q: But it’s the 1998 curriculum. There is no such thing as the 2014 curriculum is there? Or can you provide that for us?

    A: What we are going to be doing is asking teachers to use the 2014 curriculum as we embark on the most comprehensive consultation this province has ever seen when it comes to education. We made a campaign promise to respect parents and we are going to be doing that.

    Q: There is no such thing as the 2014 curriculum. It’s the same curriculum that was taught in 1998 am I not correct?

    A: The curriculum in 2014, teachers will be very used to…

    Meanwhile, statements from MPP Christine Elliott, now the Deputy Premier, appeared to suggest that content not covered by the 42-page 1998 curriculum should not be discussed openly in class:

    “The requirement is that the curriculum be followed,” Elliott said. “But of course there’s lots of student questions that come to teachers every day. Of course, a teacher is able to have a private discussion with a student to answer the questions.”

    When asked if those discussions could include topics in the now-repealed curriculum, Elliott said teachers should help put students in touch with appropriate resources.

    The government did not appear to provide any further rationalization for rescinding the sex ed curriculum in the weeks following its repeal, beyond reiterating the allegation that there was insufficient consultation. The government did not conduct any consultation before replacing the curriculum with twenty-year old information.

    Conclusion

    By this point, it is clear that the repeal of the sex ed curriculum was rooted in homophobia and transphobia.

    The repeal was popularized by a virulent homophobe and transphobe who ran for the PC leadership on that issue alone. Her low probability of winning meant her base was up for grabs with whoever she endorsed. Ford, the other social conservative in the leadership run, became that person. He adopted the same rhetoric as Granic Allen vowing to “scrap Kathleen Wynne’s ideological sex-ed curriculum and replace it with one that is age-appropriate“. Ford won the leadership race. Then he was elected Premier, and followed through with the repeal.

    The media coverage of conservative voices following the repeal further indicated that the repeal was motivated by the inclusion of content pertinent to trans experiences. Inclusion of this material was consistently presented as harmful or abusive to children.

    Meanwhile, educators, including the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, and twenty of Ontario’s 72 school boards including the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and the Toronto District School Board, have all spoken against removing the 2015 curriculum.

    In spite of this strong response, the government was unable to provide a reason for the repeal, beyond the disproved assertion of insufficient consultation. The only comment in support of teaching content pertaining to gender identity from a  minister was retracted the same day.

    PC MPPs can deny that transphobia and homophobia had any part to play, citing “process” instead, but that would be false. Ignorance and prejudice towards sexual and gender minorities was the leading reason for its repeal.

    Update – November 2018

    The resolution passed on November 17th, 2018.

    On November 17th 2018, during the convention for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, delegates passed a resolution introduced by Tanya Granic Allen that “an Ontario PC Government will remove the teaching and promotion of ‘gender identity theory’ from Ontario schools and its curriculum.” Two days later, Doug Ford stated he was “not moving forward with that.” Ford did not have to. His government had already removed all trans-related content from the curriculum.

    Since this article was written, the conservative government announced their consultation on the new sex ed curriculum would take the form of 27 telephone conference town halls across the province. Teachers reported being shut out of these consultations. This is a far cry from the 700 students, 70 organizations and more than 2,400 people consulted for the 2015 curriculum. This adds to the evidence that the lack of consultation was not the reason behind the repeal despite the government’s insistence otherwise.

    In the intervening months, two lawsuits have also been launched. The first was initiated in August by six families with an eleven year old trans youth as the lead applicant. The second was put forward in September by a pair of trans teens. Their outcome is still pending as of the time of this writing.

  • To young women in tech (2018)

    To young women in tech (2018)

    The other day I decided to compile statistics on the gender balance at my workplace. I found that:

    • 0% of leadership (managers and above) are composed of women
    • 7% of technical roles are made up of women
    • 12% of all employees are women

    Now compare this to the 2016 census data. For Ottawa-Gatineau, where my workplace is located:

    • 29% of individuals ages 25-64 who majored in computer and information sciences and support services are women
    • 18% of individuals ages 25-64 who majored in engineering are women
    • 40% of workers over age 15 in professional, scientific and technical services are women

    My workplace discriminates against women. It isn’t intentional, but it is obvious. There’s even a physical manifestation of how this office regards women in terms of the washroom layout. Men have four stalls, four urinals, four sinks, and an air dryer. Women get three stalls, two sinks, and a roll of industrial paper towel that’s left on top of the garbage receptacle. The office layout including the washrooms was designed by one of the company’s senior staff, a man.

    I’ve tried to discuss the lack of diversity with HR and my manager to no avail. I was told women simply didn’t apply, as if our discriminatory hiring process was the fault of the women. Emails to the corporate diversity person and liaison for the women’s group to get resources went unanswered. This inaction is frustrating as I know that when companies try, they can do much better on gender diversity.

    This is the least gender diverse company I’ve worked at, but they are hardly alone. At a previous employer, a tech startup, only 9% of technical positions were filled by women. My own team seemed isolated from that sexism, at 40% women, but I saw those numbers crumble as a new director brought on only employees he personally knew, all of which were men.

    On my last day at that startup, an executive confided in me that she had been groped by an employee. Another worker told me she had been passed over for a promotion by the same director who exclusively brought on men, in favour of a less qualified candidate. At the same time that the company sponsored initiatives to improve gender representation, its CTO encouraged the sexualization of women in the company-wide group chat.

    This wasn’t remarkable. Anecdotes of impropriety specific to women are common in tech. One just has to listen to the women. On my end alone:

    • A manager told a group of us that the reasons that he didn’t hire a candidate was that she was conventionally attractive, and during her interview male employees were gesturing rudely behind her. He was sure hiring her would end with a sexual harassment case. She didn’t get the job because male employees behaved inappropriately.
    • A superior jokingly massaged me and another young female developer without our consent.
    • A friend told me how employees kept trying to ask her on dates. So did another at a different employer.
    • An employee cat called the wait staff during a work lunch. The same employee joked about grabbing women’s breasts without consent at the office.
    • Male employees wear t-shirts that objectify women at work and engage in sexually objectifying banter.
    • I’ve witnessed different groups of senior employees deride inclusive hiring practices.

    The executive who confided in me that she was groped did not report it to HR. Not a single woman I know who has been touched without their consent at work has reported it. For all the policies about workplace harassment, women still have to choose between risking their livelihood and enduring abuse. Every one of these companies had an anti-discrimination policy. They are ineffective.

    When women stand up, they’re thought of as unreasonable, as politically correct, as taking fun away. We need the men to stand up with us. Not just in word – the words come so easily – but in deed. To do so proactively. I’ve only met a few men like that in my career.

    So to young women interested in getting in tech, know that the work can be amazing. Your team mates can be amazing. Your boss can be amazing. Know too you will have to meet a higher standard than men to get the same job as men. Know you will not be promoted to positions of leadership like men are. Know you will have to put up with workplace behaviours that men will rarely if ever face. Know that other women, powerless to effectuate change, will be there for moral support. That others yet in positions of power will uphold the status quo.

    But you know what? A lot of women go through their careers without noticing this stuff and the pay is hella good. So join us. We’ll be here for ya.

  • Slam Sermon: Sex Work

    Slam Sermon: Sex Work

    This is the poetry I recited for the slam sermon at my church.

    The common occupations
    Among my relations
    Are sex work
    And social work

    One has their work
    Foisted upon them
    As an identity
    Objectified
    For our moral supremacy

    The other is normalized
    Invisible from all pulpits
    Free of proselytizing

    When you say prostitute
    What I hear is the other
    Not my brother or mother

    Work is work until it is sex work
    Am I right?
    Our history of misogyny
    Breathing today
    In the lessons of the day

    Injustice makes sex work
    The best work

    Tell me what job offers a living wage
    When you’re eighteen and without family

    Tell me what job offers a living wage
    When you’re trans and mentally ill

    Tell me what job offers a living wage
    When you have PTSD and no degree

    Tell me what job offers flexible hours
    And let you work from home
    Working with your mental illness
    Instead of against it
    Is it only okay when it is for the rich?
    Is it only okay when it doesn’t offend
    The sexual purity myth of this society?

    You say prostitute
    You think destitute

    I say sex worker
    I think how was that book
    How was your date
    And did you see that thing?
    A normal experience
    In a world of indifference

    My partner works in a hospital
    My partner is a derby coach
    My partner makes porn
    My partner sells her underwear

    My friend is a talented artist
    My friend pays for rent as an escort

    My other friend is studying social work
    My other friend does out calls

    Yet another has made sex work her profession
    Domination is her expression

    Shall I go on?

    Their work no more qualifies them to be reduced
    Into objects for lessons to the righteous
    Than a baker or a painter

    Spare your pity
    Legalize this economy
    Make housing a right
    Food a guarantee
    Schooling all free

    Regard not sex workers as outcasts
    But cast out this injustice and inequality
    That exist in your mentality

    A lack of opportunity
    Intertwine sex work with poverty
    But sex work is work
    Not moral edification
    Sex work is work

  • A Month After Bill C-16

    A Month After Bill C-16

    Warning: This article contains some deeply transphobic images and text.

    Following Bill C-16’s passing, I monitored Twitter and other social media platforms with respect to the bill. Initially, coverage was mostly positive. As the news of the bill’s passage left the current news cycle, the coverage turned sharply negative.

    Some of it was particularly nasty. Below are example of tweets from the past month:

    The situation on other social media platforms frequented by both proponents and opponents of the bill, YouTube and Facebook, wasn’t much different:

    Through the month, the news media landscape remained largely positive. MacLean’s had a great article, as did The Globe & Mail. There were notable exceptions. The Ottawa Sun argued that transgender people didn’t exist:

    Most dangerously, with Bill C-16, [Prime Minister Justin Trudeau] is expanding the legal enclave of “hate speech” by creating special “gender equity” rights for an entirely fictitious group.

    The National Post, which had written article after article opposing the bill before its passing, continued to portray it as an infringement of free speech, granting special rights, and likening it to the oppressive Soviet regime:

    Bill C-16 will give transgendered and non-gendered people the ability to dictate other people’s speech.

    In other words, failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — “ze,” “zir,” “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court.

    The CBC portrayed Bill C-16 as detrimental to [cisgender] women while arguing that trans women shouldn’t be permitted to use a women’s spa:

    Bill C-16 has the capacity to actually undermine women’s rights.

    The article was written by Meghan Murphy, who testified in Parliament that trans women were not women but were men who chose “to take on stereotypically feminine traits“.

    Why was the negativity continuing so loudly on social media when the bill was becoming old news everywhere else and the fear-mongering assertions hadn’t come true?

    While this was all going on, Jordan Peterson’s income from the crowd-funding site Patreon continued to increase, and he was now making over $55,000 a monthHis fortune was in response to his YouTube videos asserting that Bill C-16 threatened his free speechIn the month since Bill C-16 has passed his monthly donations increased by nearly $10,000. Contrary to his assertions, his free speech hadn’t been impinged, much the same as it hadn’t under Toby’s Act, but generously rewarded.

    Jordan Peterson’s earnings on Patreon over time. His YouTube video lambasting Bill C-16 came out on September 27, 2016. On that day, he was making $1,177 a month. As of July 17, 2017 he made $56,470 a month.

    I mention Peterson because he is at the heart of this opposition. He popularized the argument that would define this opposition of this iteration of the trans rights bill. The last two iterations relied on the bathroom predator myth and targeting trans women and their access to gendered spaces. This one took a fresh angle, suggesting that non-discrimination protections for non-binary individuals threatened free speech. His stance went viral, and he quickly became far more popular than the very bill he was opposing. He became more popular in the United-States than in Canada, resulting in Americans getting riled up about Bill C-16.

    Popularity of Jordan Peterson, as opposed to Bill C-16. The popularity of Bill C-16 declined after it reached royal assent, while that of Jordan Peterson continued to rise. Jordan Peterson’s popularity, despite being rooted in Bill C-16, came to eclipse interest in the bill.
    In the last 30 days, Google searches for Jordan Peterson have come from the United-States.

    The bigger Jordan Peterson got, the bigger others made him. The media had a big hand to play with this. He was on television. He was testifying in Parliament. He was in newspapers. He was the subject of countless supportive editorials. His arguments that relied on othering non-binary individuals and presenting their equality as a threat to cisgender individuals were repeated over and over.

    I don’t fault Jordan Peterson for his popularity. He has awful views, but so do many people. He’s not the one who propelled himself into stardom; that requires other people to do that. Those others – especially those in the media who should have known better – are just as responsible for the spread of this vitriol.

    If this was an election year, I’d be concerned that this bill would be repealed. As it stands, the effects appear to be a poisoning of social media platforms for trans, non-binary and otherwise gender diverse individuals. I expect that the negative attention for the bill will die down with time as the attention of the libertarian click-tivists is captured by the next issue gone viral.

    I also expect that Jordan Peterson will try to stay prescient, as his significant monthly income on Patreon depends on it. This means he’ll need to release new material, which given the financial success of his campaign against Bill C-16, might mean continuing to portray minorities seeking equality as a threat. Time will tell.

  • Bill C-16 Passes

    Bill C-16 Passes

    Twelve years after it was first introduced to Parliament, the law to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act has finally passed. The final vote in the senate was 67 in favour, 11 against, and 3 abstentions.

    The day had started with conservative senators arguing that recognizing the rights of trans people infringed on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and brought up fears of sexual predators. These statements received applause from Conservatives in attendance.

    The inclusion of a new group in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in relevant hate crime sections of the Criminal Code does not improve the condition for those who are discriminated against. I would like to reiterate strongly that our laws, including the Criminal Code, are no place for an awareness campaign to assist in building understanding for those who do not fit into the colloquial “norm.”

    This will allow men to go into women’s change rooms and bathrooms across the country.

    If a person is unwilling, for religious or cultural reasons, to show a man one’s hair, how are we expected to force such a person to share the most private and intimate of spaces with someone who appears, in all physical and biological ways, to be of the opposite sex? I ask, honourable senators: Is it possible that, in passing this bill, we would be discriminating against our Muslim friends, as well as other groups, and their practice and policy of modesty?

    One of those potential consequences, as some witnesses in committee had mentioned, is that Bill C-16 in its current form may compel speech, which goes against a fundamental right that we uphold in Canada.

     

    Senator Plett’s motion to add one sentence “For greater certainty” — and if I may read the full sentence:

    For greater certainty, nothing in this Act requires the use of a particular word or expression that corresponds to the gender identity or expression of any person.

    …which was defeated, would have added language to this bill that would have given assurances of protecting free speech.

    To the “compelled speech” argument, a brilliant retort came from senator Lillian Eva Dyck:

    Even here, in the chamber, we do not have unlimited freedom of speech. […]

     

    As an example, recently when Senator Plett felt or perceived that Senator McPhedran had called him a bigot, he raised a point of privilege and the Speaker ruled in his favour.  […] Senator McPhedran said it was not her intention to offend Senator Plett. So there was a ruling made on the balance between what was said, what was intended and what was perceived. That’s what freedom of speech is all about, and that’s also what harassment is all about. If Senator McPhedran had continued to speak along those lines, then she could have been found guilty of harassment, but she did not do that.

     

    How does this relate to Bill C-16 and pronouns? I’ve already outlined that. If I or any other person were to call a trans woman by the pronoun “he,” that trans woman may well be offended. If that trans woman spoke to me and said to me, “Please, I would rather be called ‘she’ than ‘he’,” and I ignored that and continued to call that trans woman “he,” that would be discrimination. She could take this case to a human rights tribunal, and in all likelihood I would be found guilty of harassing her because I called her by the wrong pronoun and had done it willingly and as a way to discredit her, humiliate her or make her feel less than what she was really worth.

    The Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould, who had introduced Bill C-16, came by to sit down in the Senate gallery while we were observing the proceedings. Following these speeches against and in favour the bill came to a vote.

    The Speaker asked those in favour to yell “Yea”. So yelled numerous senators. Then he asked those against to yell “Nay”. The nay yells appeared to be louder. My heart stopped. “The yays have it”, declared the Speaker. Two senators stood up to trigger a roll call. The Speaker announced a half hour intermission.

    At 3:54 pm, the senate was far fuller than it had been throughout the proceedings. Each senator in favour stood up to have their vote recorded, then the senators opposed, and those abstaining, followed suit. The final vote was 67 in favour, 11 against. Plett was unsurprisingly among the eleven. The gallery cheered and stood up, to the security guard’s dismay, who was trying to get us to be quiet. The senate applauded, looking up at us as they did so.

    Afterwards, we headed to Senator Grant Mitchell’s office, the senator who had sponsored the bill. The Minister of Justice joined us. There was a brief chat, then they left, and we took the following photo.

    Some of us, myself included, headed to Dunn’s to celebrate, while other advocates headed to Nate’s. News outlets pickled up the story within hours with mostly positive coverage. The response was much more significant than it had been throughout the bill’s life cycle following its introduction. The National Post and the CBC published stories opposing the passage of the bill.

    I don’t feel particularly joyful at the news of the bill’s passage. There are benefits to C-16 that will permeate across the country. For instance, when someone in an HR department copies the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination for their own internal policy, it could now include gender identity and expression. Trans employees will benefit from that. When pollsters look to define populations, they might pull from the prohibited grounds list, and trans people will now be counted. Specific hate crime statistics will also be collected now that gender identity or expression is part of the Criminal Code. Individuals challenging institutional discrimination will have another argument to call upon. There’s lots of freebies that comes from the passage of this law, without it ever being used in a human rights case.

    This bill would of had a much greater impact had it passed when it was introduced twelve years ago. Perhaps my lack of celebratory feelings is related to thinking of all the people who were harmed while Parliament let these intervening bills die through action and inaction. The bill, though a positive step, has less impact now.

    Perhaps my muted response comes from knowing that this law alone won’t alone protect transgender, non-binary and otherwise gender variant individuals. It isn’t laws like this which significantly changes statistics in short order, like these ones I picked for trans youth:

    This is unsurprising given the attitudes of cisgender Canadians:

    These numbers are a sobering reminder that legislation represent a small component of a much larger effort. I do want to acknowledge that there’s a lot of positive changes lately though, and I’m pleased.

    I also want to recognize former NDP MP Bill Siksay, who first introduced this legislation as a private members bill in 2005, and current NDP MP Randall Garrison who took over the task of introducing it’s successors after Bill Siksay retired from politics. I am likewise thankful to Grant Mitchell the sponsor of the bill in the Senate and Amanda Ryan, Susan Gapka and the many others who tirelessly lobbied for this. This is a victory. This law was needed, and their work has made a difference.