Using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime

[madoka]

It's like first world liberals are in a race with each other to see who can make the most socially retarded, asinine laws.

Good luck with that Canadians.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the House of Commons to pass into law.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“[Ideologues are] using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward,” said the professor to the Senate in May. “The very idea that calling someone a term that they didn’t choose causes them such irreparable harm that legal remedies should be sought [is] an indication of just how deeply the culture of victimization has sunk into our society.”

 

[sandorski]

Repost and inaccurate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Another fucking deplorable complaining about having to treat other people like human beings. Damn your life must suck.

It's like first world liberals are in a race with each other to see who can make the most socially retarded, asinine laws.

Good luck with that Canadians.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No it won't. I've been hearing alarmist stuff like this for 30+ years and none of it has happened

 

[umbrella39]

Why is the OP always a sopping wet victim... Not to mention this is about Canada and your forgot to tag in Beta Max PLUS there are no YouTube videos so this entire thread is invalid...

 

[brycejones]

How many posts before the op whines about his favorite topic (his steel penis substitute)?

Poor oppressed op.

 

[buckshot24]

Another fucking deplorable complaining about having to treat other people like human beings. Damn your life must suck.

You can't legislate that.

 

[theeedude]

Canada is the new California for the American right. Now that Cali is kicking their states' butts an taking names, despite their never ending doomsday predictions, it's getting harder to bash. So they have to find another whipping boy.

 

[buckshot24]

Canada is the new California for the American right. Now that Cali is kicking their states' butts an taking names, despite their never ending doomsday predictions, it's getting harder to bash. So they have to find another whipping boy.

You think it should be ILLEGAL to use words people don't agree with?

 

[child of wonder]

Intentionally using the wrong pronouns to insult or disrespect someone may make you a dick, but it shouldn't make you a criminal.

 

[cfenton]

All this does is add "gender identity or expression" to this list of identifiable groups. Your claim that "using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime" is false. It would only be a hate crime if you are intentionally using the wrong gender pronoun to advocate genocide or promote hatred toward an identifiable group.

Section 318 (4) of the Criminal Code now reads:

Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Where it used to read:

Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code:

Advocating genocide

• 318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
  
  
• Definition of genocide
  
  (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
  
  • (a) killing members of the group; or
    
    
  • (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
    
• Marginal note:Consent
  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
  
  
• Definition of identifiable group
  
  (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
  
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    
• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
  (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
  
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    
    
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    
• Marginal noteefences
  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
  
  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
    
    
  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
    
    
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
    
    
  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

 

[John Connor]

Using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime



Indeed.

<-----

 

[Commodus]

Can we just lock this thread? It's rehashing an argument from a much larger thread, and an inherently false argument at that (as in, it fundamentally misunderstands what the law is about).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why is the OP always a sopping wet victim... Not to mention this is about Canada and your forgot to tag in Beta Max PLUS there are no YouTube videos so this entire thread is invalid...

Long hair and crazy, only missing assless chaps. This should round things out for you

 

[buckshot24]

All this does is add "gender identity or expression" to this list of identifiable groups. Your claim that "using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime" is false. It would only be a hate crime if you are intentionally using the wrong gender pronoun to advocate genocide or promote hatred toward an identifiable group.

How can "using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime" be false when the next sentence you say that it could be a hate crime?

 

[xthetenth]

How can "using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime" be false when the next sentence you say that it could be a hate crime?

It's not the using the wrong gender pronoun that's the crime, it's the actually literally advocating violence, dingbat.

 

[NostaSeronx]

I want to see a hate war between the genders of Apache and Kamov though.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Can we just lock this thread? It's rehashing an argument from a much larger thread, and an inherently false argument at that (as in, it fundamentally misunderstands what the law is about).

It's *not* misunderstanding, it's deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[brycejones]

Is anyone shocked the op gets its news from the daily caller?

 

[Commodus]

It's *not* misunderstanding, it's deliberate misrepresentation.

Wouldn't be surprised... in cases like this, it's hard to tell how much of it is outright lying versus poor critical thinking skills.

 

[WelshBloke]

How can "using the wrong gender pronoun could now be a hate crime" be false when the next sentence you say that it could be a hate crime?

Let me put it simply:

"You're a lovely human!" --- rude, unacceptable but legal.
"Lets kill the lovely human!" --- hate crime.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wouldn't be surprised... in cases like this, it's hard to tell how much of it is outright lying versus poor critical thinking skills.

Thread starter is one of the coterie of professional 'pearl clutchers' that hang out here. It's deliberate for those folks.