Terrifying attack on Free Speech: Bill Criminalizing Gender Criticism passed 1st Reading in Canadian parliament

[DontLikeCrumpets]

Here are some snippets from a lengthy article at WomenAreHuman regarding Bill C-261.

snip

"...feminists like myself have been expecting what was originally Bill C-36.... to be seen again. What is interesting now though, is how it was introduced and by whom.

Bill C-261 is sponsored by Independent MP Kevin Vuong who represents Spadina-Fort-York, part of downtown Toronto.

snip

...“gender identity” and “gender expression” are not mentioned. And yet there they are discreetly hitching a ride on the back of anti-racism... The clever thing about it is that anyone who disputes this bill could plausibly be construed as racist.

snip

Buried deep within the text of the bill are “gender identity and expression”, which would be added to the list of characteristics protected from hate propaganda, hate crimes, and hate speech under the Criminal Code of Canada and the Human Rights Act. To do so could have severe consequences on the lives of Canadian women and our Freedom of Expression.

snip

What Canadians will find most disturbing about this bill is that it would enable complaints to be made to the Human Rights Tribunal based on “Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime”

This is understandable in the context of fear that someone might commit an act of terrorism, but to treat feminism critical of gender ideology on par with terrorism is absolutely reprehensible.

Females, comparatively to males, are the non-violent sex; we write, we speak, we create, we do not commit mass murders. But the Canadian government apparently wishes to impair our ability to express ourselves peacefully.

snip

If “gender identity and expression” are to become characteristics protected under the Human Rights Act of Canada, we expect them to be presented as a stand-alone bill, not hiding behind those who have fought a long hard battle on their own merits. We have had decades of educating ourselves about issues of homophobia, and centuries of debate about racism and sexism. We have not, however, had decades of debating gender identity and expression. And much of what we have learned about it has been suppressed by the mainstream media. At least in the United Kingdom, there is open, though often heated, debate in Parliament about laws pertaining to gender identity and expression before they are passed. In Canada we are told “No debate!”.

THE SUMMARY OF THE BILL READS:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create a recognizance to keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crimes and to define ‘hatred’ for the purposes of two hate propaganda offences.

... it amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to accept complaints alleging this discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to adjudicate complaints and order remedies.

READ MORE at www.womenarehuman.com/gender-identity-and-expression-stow-away-on-resurfacing-anti-racism-bill/

The truth is criminalised.

It's insane how anyone could possibly believe this is going to end well, instead of make anger, resentment, growing injury and absolute division grow like a weed. It's mindless in its sheer stupidity.

It's the same back handed tactics. Sneaking it in at the same time as valid anti racism legislation. Similar tactics to how Ireland ended up with self id. Wake up Canada please.

Norway is now taking feminists to court based on a similar law. If you define a protected group (transgender) on the basis of something which requires all the rest of the society to also change their own definitions (that 'women' and 'men' now must have nothing to do with biological sex), then hate speech against that protected group means that nobody else can question this forced redefinition of who they now are.

And yes, it's the same piggybacking strategy that has always been used: add your issue to something else that has widespread support.

If something can only exist by threatening and terrorising everyone else into vigorously pretending that it does, whatever they really think?

Well the fact you have to terrorise them into obeying says a whole lot, doesn't it? And what happens throughout recorded history when you push a captive population past their point of tolerance by - well, enforcing flags, you know, a la Captain Von Trapp at the point they all head over the mountains? Or forcing joining in with mantras and vigorously denying the evidence of eyes and senses?

Can anyone think of any time when this has gone well and ended in sunshine, rainbows and permanent change?

Honestly, going through the history books and editing out all the nasty bits is probably next, because if no one's allowed to mention it it never happened .

Do you think if we all banned any mention of Boris he'd cease to exist too? Would that fix that problem?

Yes, exactly - snuck in under cover of more popular legislation.

It's horrible to think your own government are gaslighting you.

I would not like this to get lost in the discussion, the bill is not just a problem because of the gender element being snuck in, theough that shows how underhanded it all is The kind of power this gives potentially to shut down dissenting opinions on all kinds of things os scary, t's a completely new direction for our liberal democratc values and undermines their very basis.

It's not as if the kind of anti-racism that is now being pushed here in Canada or by the progressive element in the US is without significant dispute. And yes, they will absolutely and without shame accuse anyone who does dispute it of racism. Does anyone really think there aren't student activists who would be happy to use legislation like this to prevent someone like John McWhorter from speaking on campus? It's terrifying.

I think it's important to attempt to educate the public on how hateful beliefs can cause systemic damage to various groups. However, hate speech laws will always be problematic because defining what is hateful and what is not is solely dependent on who's in power at a particular point in time. E.g. A Christian majority could claim that saying 'Inshallah' is hate speech. Ten years later, an all Buddhist government could claim that nativity sets sold in stores are problematic.

Hate speech laws are anti-democracy and anti-liberalism.

This is supposed to be parodic but it could well form part of the Law & Order franchise in Canada…