I cannot claim to have been following this carefully, but l have been interested in the case because it is Canada. The panel members will be constrained whatever their deep held convictions, by the prevailing miasma. Canada is very TWAW in the media (not so much the public, but many are taken in).
And then there is Bill C-16:
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
I am not suggesting Amy's case is a pronoun case, just that way back in 2017 the above was enacted with all involved patting each others backs and feeling very virtuous indeed. BARBARA FINDLEY continues this mindless struggle for trans rights in the face of reason and facts. To me the panel can see through this but to what extent are they captured or threatened by the ideology? Canada is utterly destroyed by GI, just so very destroyed. I despair.
"Until they purge the contempt." Sends shivers.