Talk:An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

No criticism or controversy??

There is a massive debate surrounding this bill and the current page author(s) frames it as though the only criticism that it doesn't go far enough! The concern is that "hate proganda" will expand to include disagreement with trans theory and this will curtail academic freedom. The term "genderism" is a good example, it refers to the majority view in evolutionary biology and feminism that sex is a biological reailty. Trans theory posits that sex is a social construction, and that gender is something attached to neither sex not social forces. Simone de Beauvoir and her seminal work the Second Sex are both at risk of becoming hate speech because they represent "genderism," a term designed to mirror "racism" and "sexism," that refers to those who are critical of trans theory. (See Slate article.) Further, the bill, critics say, will result in compelled speech -- which the Supreme Court in the U.S. has ruled unconstitutional -- in that it will compel individuals to use gender-neutral pronouns, which are "made up" -- that is, they are not commonly used by most English speakers. Joeletaylor (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill C-16 doesn't criminalize academia or compel speech. It only does two things: permits tribunals to order remedies in the event of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, and criminalizes speech advocating violence or genocide against transgender people. de Beauvoir is not discriminating in producing academic work, no matter how much mainstream theory might agree/disagree with her, and any complaints she might receive fall outside of the tribunal's authority unless her work begins calling for elimination of transgender people. "Compelling speech" is highly unlikely. People often bring up an example like consistently (accidentally) misgendering someone resulting in tribunal sanction for the worker - but it's a bad example. No one has even been found to discriminate because they're unable to pronounce, or forgetful about pronouncing names uncommon in English, for example (Nguyen), unless it was paired with other clearly discriminatory behaviour. If people mess up with gendering, they mess up. It's only a problem if they're messing up on purpose, with the intent of causing harm, and it's clear that's the case. And, if that is the case, why shouldn't that discrimination be punished? Heterodidact (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What if they believe that using the pronouns would harm the person like Dr Peterson.Heroin123 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: As I believe this topic might be under a WP:1RR restriction I won't revert you again myself, but I am fairly sure this edit does not conform to the wording in the bill in question. Please provide a reliable source to back up your edit that summarizes the legislation as "To enforce the use of the 'right' words" and states that it makes it illegal to "use the 'Wrong' pronouns". Funcrunch (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: I still challenge your edit based on the source you provided. The bill refers to deliberate misgendering as Heterodidact pointed out above, and your putting "wrong" in quotes in your edit suggests a non-neutral viewpoint on your part. Funcrunch (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: On taking a closer look at the source you provided I see that it is not even the bill under discussion; it is a document from the Ontario Human Rights Commission dated January 2014. This is the bill. Funcrunch (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Just FYI: "Heroin123" is a sockpuppet of a known vandal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heroin123 for details. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, just saw that. A very persistent sock; we've had several run-ins on gender-related articles. Funcrunch (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Amazing that there is no section on the Peterson Affair

Whether one agrees with him or not, no page describing this bill can be considered unbiased without outlining the debate around the bill.

192.197.178.2 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC) BasedGod

I have looked at the history of the page and there used to be one it appears.Heroin123 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I, too, am amazed that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding this bill. I came to this article to read more about the controversy, especially Jordan Peterson's view and the counter-view. The absence of such a section in the article stinks of censorship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Axl: You realize you're replying to a sockpuppet, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_D.H.110. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, it looks like it's reasonably well covered at Jordan Peterson, which makes sense because the entire "affair" seems to be Peterson engaging in some self-promotion or attention-seeking behavior. After reviewing what the D.H.110 sockpuppets were pushing here (not remotely reliable sources and various youtube videos, either self-promotional or just from hate groups), what they tried to insert is totally invalid. If you feel like coming up with some wording for a brief section on controversies during passage that actually has reliable sourcing, please, suggest away. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not know that the account is a sockpuppet. However that is irrelevant. His (zer?) point is still valid. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So it begins. Apparently, LifeSiteNews is an "unreliable source". For interested readers, this is their declaration. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Life Site News is about as reliable as Breitbart. It's a hate site that doesn't even merit its own wikipedia article, as it's just a propaganda site for the extremist Campaign Life Coalition. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Even without getting into the broader merits of the site, the article cited states that, after passing the Senate, the bill "requires only royal assent in the House of Commons to become law." I'm sure we can find more reliable sources if needed, but I think a brief summary and link to the main article is all that is needed here.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Now Morty C-137 characterizes my edit as "attempting to reinsert POV-pushing material from D.H.110 sockpuppets". Wow! I haven't even seen any of the so-called "POV-pushing material". All I did was add a single relevant, referenced sentence about the (massive) controversy. It is particularly ironic that ze accuses me of "POV-pushing" while simultaneously censoring the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the material was relevant and should be reinserted. I would also invite all editors to make an extra effort to assume good faith on a contentious topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're not going to get that with Morty, who seems to be unlikely to assume good faith on the part of anyone. Your best bet is to simply ignore him, if you can. His mantra of "POV pushing", "harassment", "inappropriate", and "sockpuppet" are endless, and responding to any of it will probably not be a good use of your time. KDS4444 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Enumerating the perceived faults of other editors wasn't really what I had in mind.--Trystan (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuck it, you're on your own @Trystan:. Admins won't do shit about the WP:WIKIHOUNDING by KDS4444 and others, there's no point to be here just so they can use newbies like a fucking whipping boy. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Updating needed

Since Bill C-16, 2016 has passed all stages in the House of Commence and the Senate and is now awaiting royal assent, this article needs to be updated to reflect this. As this would be a bit to complected for me to do, I will leave this task to a Wikipedian or Wikipedians more knowledgeable in this area. Relevant info can be found here. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)