Canada, at times, seems to have so much potential when it comes to protecting Canadian citizens from wrongful neglect and abuse, witness bill C-389:
“Bill C-389 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of transgender or transsexual citizens. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the workplace or elsewhere, and would amend the Criminal Code so that crimes committed against people because they are transgender or transsexual would be treated as hate crime.”
What a forward looking piece of legislation, treating more people like human beings. How outrageous. Something though has to done to derail this crazy human rights train before it really takes off. Thankfully, we have the Canadian Senate for that.
“Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not support the transgendered rights legislation, it may well face similar purgatory when it arrives in the Senate.
The Conservatives, who have a majority in the upper house, have adopted the tactic of using the Senate to block private members’ bills passed by the House of Commons that don’t accord with the government’s agenda.”
Ah, can you feel the all the reflection going on? All the deep thoughts and decidedly non-partisan sombre musings?
Me either. It is nice to see the unelected branch of our government quashing human rights legislation as the status-quo most definitely needs to be maintained.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
February 15, 2011 at 8:00 am
Tweets that mention Canada Briefly Shows Signs of Being Progressive – Transgendered Rights Bill C-389 « Dead Wild Roses -- Topsy.com
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Progressive Bloggers, The Arbourist. The Arbourist said: Canada Briefly Shows Signs of Being Progressive – Transgendered Rights Bill C-389 http://wp.me/pyhFw-MF […]
LikeLike
February 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm
movender
Hello
Are biological females protected from hate speech and hate crimes?
Rape, pornography, and the visual, written or verbal depictions of same. Etc.
LikeLike
February 18, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Vern R. Kaine
That’s part of the problem – government creates so many laws and rules trying to create fairness that what ends up being created isn’t fair at all.
I agree with the sentiment of the bill (no one should be discriminated against because of gender – “born as”, or otherwise), but this sounds more like politics than justice to me.
If a transgender was refused employment based on being transgender, how is that any different than being refused employment based on “regular” gender alone, which there are already laws and presidents in place to protect against? Is this law to protect people who are in between genders?
There’s got to be more sound, legal reasons as to why this bill is not being supported, and I think it’s at least partly because they want to label any discrimination towards transgenders as a “hate crime” rather than just, perhaps, discrimination.
So when any transgender is refused a job, it automatically gets considered to be a “hate crime” and that employer gets unfairly dragged into court, or their name unfairly dragged through the mud, even though it might be something else? Someone can crack dumb jock or dumb blonde jokes in the workplace, but the minute someone cracks a “tranny” joke it’s now a “hate crime”? That doesn’t seem right. Seems like it would be too easy for a law like that to be abused. How do they ever prove the “hate” in a hate crime, anyways?
LikeLike
February 20, 2011 at 8:30 am
The Arbourist
If a transgender was refused employment based on being transgender, how is that any different than being refused employment based on “regular” gender alone, which there are already laws and presidents in place to protect against?
Well, it gets really sticky because some elements of our society believe that gender is essentially a strict dichotomy and attempt to base societies rules on that assumption.
Gender, like most human traits is based on a continuum and people who are around the edges and those who are born in the wrong biological bodies have to suffer for the invalid perceptions of society.
So when any transgender is refused a job, it automatically gets considered to be a “hate crime” and that employer gets unfairly dragged into court, or their name unfairly dragged through the mud, even though it might be something else?
I’m thinking that the legislation addresses the idea that if the applicant in question is discriminated against solely on the basis of his/her transgendered status, that is when said legislation kicks in.
Someone can crack dumb jock or dumb blonde jokes in the workplace, but the minute someone cracks a “tranny” joke it’s now a “hate crime”? That doesn’t seem right.
Because the dumb blond jokes are an patriarchally accepted form of hate and derision. Degradation of women and their talents is par for the course in society, and their contributions and value are always consistently undervalued. So yes, people can crack blonde jokes because it affirms the norms of Patriarchal society.
As to the making slurs against the trans-gendered, it would certainly not be considered a hate crime, considering that we what we allow to happen against women and not classify that abuse as a hate crime or systemic discrimination.
Seems like it would be too easy for a law like that to be abused.
Consider the situation of the transgendered men who are becoming women. There is nothing easy about the situation in a strict biological sense, but the part that comes with society is often a difficult pill to swallow is the loss of Male Privilege and realization that you are joining a gender that is systematically devalued in our society.
How do they ever prove the “hate” in a hate crime, anyways?
“Oh, you are Jewish? I’m sorry we don’t hire Jews here.”
About as easy as that. :>
LikeLike
February 20, 2011 at 9:31 am
Vern R. Kaine
“Degradation of women and their talents is par for the course in society, and their contributions and value are always consistently undervalued.”
always consistently undervalued? I think that’s a sweeping generalization that exists mostly in the “hate men” category, and in the end (I believe) does far more to hold back the cause than further it. At any rate, it doesn’t justify the transgender hate crime law. It’s like you’re saying that helping women is a lost cause, so let’s at least see what we can do for the even possibly harsher-treated transgenders?
This is about equal treatment for men, women, and transgenders (I still don’t get why someone transgender wouldn’t just fall under the rights of the gender they’ve now become, anyways?) but degradation exists everywhere, and not just against women.
Men get constantly degraded in our society. For starters, count all the “kick in the nuts” clips that have laughing or laugh tracks associated with them, even where young men or even boys are concerned, or comments like this one that occur on air: http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/02/16/video-female-tv-anchor-mocks-sports-reporters-manhood/ If the situation were reversed and he said something like that to her, there’d be calls for his head.
Take a highly concentrated female environment and there’s just as much of a stereotype against men as there is if it’s the other way around. I think in most places it has less to do with gender bias as it does simply with herd mentality and GroupThink. That’s life.
I think the real problem underneath it all is that both sides are told to suck it up – ignore it, live with it, quit being such a “wimp”, etc.. That problem, however, seems to me to be only an actual “problem” (i.e. makes life miserable, ruins lives, etc.) in a rare number of workplaces.
I digress. Like I said, I support the anti-discrimination legislation for transgenders but it still hasn’t been clarified why discrimination against them should be classified as “hate crimes” when the same discrimination or degradation that could happen against men and women wouldn’t be?
You say, “Oh, you are Jewish? I’m sorry we don’t hire Jews here.” that it’s “About as easy as that”, but I don’t think it is. Again, that sounds more like discrimination to me.
For example, if you don’t like your neighbor because he’s an a$$hole, and therefore you choose, for example, not to elect him to your condo board, or start a business with him, or hire him, etc. does that mean you now “hate” him? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
February 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm
The Arbourist
always consistently undervalued? I think that’s a sweeping generalization that exists mostly in the “hate men” category, and in the end (I believe) does far more to hold back the cause than further it.
Please go here.
Men get constantly degraded in our society.
And that equals the misogynistic, discriminatory repression women face every day by default? Really?
I digress. Like I said, I support the anti-discrimination legislation for transgenders but it still hasn’t been clarified why discrimination against them should be classified as “hate crimes” when the same discrimination or degradation that could happen against men and women wouldn’t be?
This is somewhat a moot point, as this legislation will not be approved by the senate. But anyhow, I’m thinking that the legislation addresses the idea that if the applicant in question is discriminated against solely on the basis of his/her transgendered status, that is when said legislation kicks in.
LikeLike
February 21, 2011 at 8:54 am
The Arbourist
“always consistently undervalued?”
And objectified, do not forget about that either. :/
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 10:52 am
Vern R. Kaine
I’ve had sisters and girlfriends work in the type of environment you describe, and I’ve also consulted in these environments personally so I’m well aware that they (unfortunately) exist. I can also tell you, though, having worked in many, many companies where we’ve even taught courses on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, that these types of work environments are still the exception and not the norm.
The types of guys you try and refer to in these comics are the few and not the many, and my experience has been that they are equal in proportion to the women who hide behind their gender over their flurry of entitlement issues, absenteeism, and relatively poor performance compared to other women in the office who let their work, and not their gender, speak for their value to the company.
You see women complaining about appearing as a “bitch”. Well most guys I know in upper management come across as jerks or assholes. What’s the difference? They don’t necessarily like it, but they don’t complain about how it hurts their feelings because they recognize that that’s what they need to do (or be sometimes) to get the job done. It’s not a popularity contest.
That being said, I know there’s a double standard and I know it’s unfair, but that’s business. Business isn’t a nest or a playground, it’s a battlefield, and at the upper management level it involves taking risks not only in what you do, but how you’re perceived in doing it. If people have a problem with that, they can just join a union and just stay in the lower ranks where they can all be equal and happy just doing a “job”. If they want to move into the upper management and a true leadership position, however, they’re going to have to stop worrying about how they appear to other people.
LikeLike