Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin (The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Is there agreement that I do not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: We do not see the clock. Senator Mitchell, please continue.

And then Second Reading continued for another half hour.

Bill C-279 is scheduled to have its second hour of debate at Second Reading this Tuesday, and then it will be up to Conservative Senate majority leader Marjory LeBreton whether to allow the bill to go to a vote.  If it passes that, it goes to committee for review and possible changes.  If changes are made, the bill would need to return to Parliament for another vote of approval.  If not, the bill proceeds to Third Reading stage, two hours of debate and then, majority leader willing, a final vote.  Senator Mitchell hopes to have the process completed by June.  He tells Xtra:

“We’re told that the Prime Minister will prorogue in the fall and bring in a new throne speech,” Mitchell tells Xtra. “When you prorogue, everything is more or less back to square one. It would start all over again.”

His speech follows:

Honourable senators, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise to support this bill. We Canadians have in the past consistently been able to distinguish ourselves in the pantheon of human rights, equality and anti-discrimination leadership. Unfortunately, there is always a new frontier that needs to be fought and opened up in equality rights. Today, with Bill C-279, we address, confront and hopefully begin to open up yet another frontier. We have done much, and now we have the chance to do more.

One of the first bills that I worked on when I came to the Senate was the gay marriage bill. To this day, I believe it was one of the most interesting and significant bills that I have ever worked on, and one of the most significant things — perhaps the best thing — that I have ever done in politics. It was immensely moving the day that we passed that bill. Once again, we had established Canada as a leader in this world of rights, equality and justice in a way for which people around the world envy us for what we have here and, sometimes, for what we take for granted.

I remember a kind of a funny story, and I will share it with honourable senators. Of course, it was Prime Minister Paul Martin who launched the initiative to pass the gay marriage bill and legalize gay marriage. He was aided a great deal in that effort by Scott Brison, a Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia who happens to be gay. Scott sat just behind and beside the Prime Minister. After weeks and hours and hours of fight, debate and exhaustion, the bill was finally passed. Prime Minister Martin turned to Scott Brison and said “Scott, you had better darn well get married.” Sure enough, Scott did get married. I do not know if it was months later or several years later. I was not there, but it was a lovely, wonderful event with a couple of prime ministers and former prime ministers, and premiers and former premiers. It was quintessentially Canadian. Since that time, my wife and I have been able to go to two marriages of gay couples. Again, they were moving, loving, understanding, warm and wonderful events that I think captured the very essence of what we are as Canadians.

Now we have the chance to distinguish ourselves again with Bill C-279, which is the bill that addresses transgender rights and gender identity. So many of us do not fully understand the kind of lives that transgendered people have to live in our country: the discrimination, the hate, the violence — often profound violence — that they are subjected to, and the alienation. In this bill we are simply being asked to help our neighbours, some of our colleagues, and some of our family members. We are asked to help them and give them some respite and acceptance, and to elevate the importance of their issues. They are asking for some protection, so they can live more protected, fulfilled and safer lives.

This bill is specifically designed to do two things. First, it will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to specify gender identity as a fundamental right and basis for defining discrimination. Second, it will amend the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code to include gender identity as a distinguishing characteristic in defining hate crimes under section 318, and also as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration at sentencing under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-279 will rewrite the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity. I want to read the purpose of that act and add in gender identity, because it is such a powerful statement about fundamental Canadian values of equality and justice.

The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, [gender identity,] marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Honourable senators, this change precipitated by Bill C-279 therefore hinges on the concept of gender identity, which it clearly defines:

… “gender identity” means, in respect of an individual, the individual’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth.

Let me take this further. There is a good deal of confusion about this concept of gender identity and the implications of gender identity, though in reality this concept is not all that complicated or complex; it is just not something that many of us are fully aware of.

All of us have a gender identity. The concept of gender identity in the context of rights and the context of this bill addresses the lives of people who suffer often profound discrimination and sometimes violent abuse because of their gender identity. This would include, among others, people who are transgender, transsexual, girls who are tomboys, and women who dress or present themselves in a more masculine fashion and vice versa for men.

This bill will undoubtedly have the greatest impact in protecting transgender and transsexual people, who are the focus of some of the worst discrimination and abuse suffered by the people who fall into our category of gender identity.

Who are transgender or transsexual people? I think many of us often think of transgender people as cross-dressers — men who dress as women and women who dress as men. This is probably one of the most frequent misconceptions. Cross-dressers can often be quite comfortable with their gender and their sexual orientation and simply enjoy dressing in a way that many would see as different or inconsistent with what many hold as social norms for their gender.

On the other hand, a transgender or transsexual person is someone who has moved from the gender assigned to them at birth to the one that they experience in their heart and soul. They dress accordingly, and this is not therefore cross-dressing. For some, being expected to wear clothes associated with their birth sex has always felt wrong, like forced cross-dressing.

For those who say this definition or concept is not reflected, it is reflected in a number of areas of definition, and one is as stated by the Canadian Psychological Association in October 2010:

The Canadian Psychological Association affirms that all adolescent and adult persons have the right to define their own gender identity regardless of chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. Moreover, all adolescent and adult persons have the right to free expression of their self-defined gender identity.

The Canadian Psychological Association opposes stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination on the basis of chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role, or on the basis of a self-defined gender identity or the expression thereof in exercising all basic human rights.

A transgender person simply knows that they are of a gender different from the one assigned them at birth and as indicated by the physical and physiological features of their body. In fact, data from the Trans PULSE Project indicates that roughly 60 per cent of trans people are aware that their gender does not match their body before they reached the age of 10. Over 80 per cent have this deeply felt awareness prior to the age of 19. No one knows conclusively why this is the case; it just is.

Transgender and transsexual people do not make it up and they do not fake it. It is not a choice. Why would any people want to inflict upon themselves society’s stigma and what follows from it by voluntarily becoming transgender? Those problems are alienation; profound lack of acceptance; fear of bullying, violence, rape and economic discrimination; discrimination in the workforce, housing and medical care; and unprecedented levels of suicide.

It seems to me that it really is unfair in some sense to question or judge something as personal and as profound as someone’s appreciation of their own gender identity. Transgender and transsexual people hurt no one because of their gender identity, but they are hurt themselves relentlessly — psychologically and often seriously physically.

Oscar Wilde made a wonderful point that was quoted by MP Randall Garrison, who is the sponsor of this bill. I should point out that this bill follows on from the bill presented some years ago by Hedy Fry. Oscar Wilde’s quote was: “Be yourself. Everyone else is taken.”

This bill is a step toward allowing transgender people the chance to be themselves, to be, if not absolutely and immediately accepted as they are and as they should be, then certainly not rejected, discriminated against or subjected to violence or any number of other indignities because of it.

Why is it necessary? In some senses, what I have said to this point speaks for itself, but let me go into more detail. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has noted this in a way that summarizes the case that I will build:

There are, arguably, few groups in society today who are as disadvantaged and disenfranchised as the transgendered community. Transphobia combined with the hostility of society to the very existence of transgendered people are fundamental human rights issues.

While it is not always easy to tell if someone is transgender and how many transgender people there are, estimates are that in Canada there are from one in 1,000 to one in 200 people who would consider themselves to be transgender. That is somewhere between 34,000 and 170,000 people. That range is not an insignificant number. However, even if it were far fewer, Canadians know it is in our DNA that everyone has a right to acceptance, protection and safety so that harm that transgender people endure because of other people’s issues with their gender identity is the profound reason why we need this bill.

I will say it again and I want to emphasize it again: Transgender people suffer alienation, profound lack of acceptance; fear of and actual bullying, sometimes on a daily basis; violence; rape; and serious economic discrimination in the workforce, as well as discrimination in housing and medical care. Research in Ontario has shown that these forms of exclusion, discrimination and violence have led to unprecedented levels of suicide, suicide ideation and suicide attempt.

Here are some telling and frightening job statistics. In recent studies, only one third of trans Ontarians were working full-time and another 15 per cent had only part-time jobs. One out of every five was unemployed or on disability; one quarter was students; and 3 per cent were retired. I want to emphasize that almost 20 per cent of transgender people in Ontario at the time of this study were unemployed. That is two-and-a-half times higher than the unemployment rate generally in Ontario.

Job stability is often limited and those who choose to transition in a workplace often have serious problems in retaining their employment due to hostility either from the employer or others in the workplace. It is interesting, and this is an aside, that related to this is the problem of even getting references and academic transcripts with the correct name, pronoun and sex designation once someone has acted on their transgender identity.

Transgender people are significantly underpaid even if they can get jobs. Over 70 per cent of all transgender people are earning less than $30,000 per year. This is despite the fact that they are highly educated. Twenty-six per cent of transgender people have some post-secondary education; 38 per cent have completed post- secondary education; and 7 per cent have master’s degrees or better. In total, 70 per cent of trans people have post-secondary education of some kind, up to highly sophisticated post- secondary education degrees. Yet, 70 per cent of those who are working earn less than $30,000 per year.

Rates of depressive symptoms amongst transgender Canadians are as high as two-thirds. The rate of hate crimes against transgender Canadians is very high. In fact, transgender Canadians are the group most likely to suffer hate crimes involving violence, and the incidence of this type of crime is probably under-reported because law enforcement agencies in this country do not collect statistics based on gender expression and gender identity.

Research in Ontario indicates that 20 per cent of trans people have been physically or sexually assaulted because they were transgender, and only because of that. This is very profound and disturbing. Seventy-seven per cent of trans people in Ontario reported seriously considering suicide; 43 per cent reported they had attempted suicide; and, of those who had attempted suicide, almost 70 per cent tried at age 19 or younger.

Trans youth are twice as likely as their non-trans counterparts to consider suicide. The same study indicates that those who had experienced physical or sexual assault due to being trans were twice as likely to have seriously considered suicide as those who had not had the experience of physical or sexual assault and over seven times as likely to have attempted it.

An Egale Canada survey found that 90 per cent of trans- identified youth reported hearing transphobic comments directed at them, often daily. Twenty-three per cent of those students reported hearing teachers directing transphobic comments towards them and against them. Twenty-five per cent reported having been physically harassed, and 24 per cent reported having property stolen or damaged.

We have a profound belief in equal access to health care in the Canadian identity. It is another part of our DNA. We pride ourselves on everyone having equal access to health care. However, trans Canadians find that in accessing health care — quite apart from surgeries which are not as widespread as some are led to believe — they are often denied medically necessary care by being forced to deal with the issue of their gender before they can access the service. They also suffer from poor access to psychological health care services and sometimes insensitive or hostile treatment from health care professionals based on their gender identity.

In Ontario, 21 per cent of trans people report that at some point when they needed emergency care they avoided the emergency room because of the fear of mistreatment. Clearly, no one should feel that they are safer outside a hospital during a medical emergency.

Education and the elevation of the issue are critical in the consideration of support for this bill. Some, if not most, of the discrimination these trans people suffer is rooted in ignorance and a simple lack of understanding of their circumstances among some Canadians. Canadians are not generally a mean people. We all know that in our hearts and we have consistently risen to the high road of rights issues when we grapple with them and understand them. The issue needs to be illuminated and explained, and this bill help helps to give and shed light on this issue.

As Irwin Cotler, MP, said in the House of Commons:

The Canadian Human Rights Act is more than just an act of Parliament. It is an act of recognition, a statement of our collective values, and a document that sets out a vision of a Canada where all individuals enjoy equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination.

As Justice La Forest of the Supreme Court of Canada said, a failure to explicitly refer to gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act leaves transgendered people “invisible.”

This bill educates and secures recognition of this issue in a highly visible and significant way. The debate that it has created, the foundation of understanding that it will engender in the future, and the seriousness that it imparts to crimes of violence against people on the basis of their gender identity are all significantly important in elevating and educating so that progress can be made.

Adding this feature to the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code will send a very powerful message about a discriminatory behaviour that is absolutely unacceptable. It will sustain the idea that the rights of transgender people must be recognized and respected and that transgender people must have the right to participate fully in Canadian society.

There is a range of arguments against the bill, of course, as is always the case, and I would like to address those, each in their turn.

One argument is that gender identity inclusion in the bill is not necessary since it is already covered in human rights legislation and in the Criminal Code under sex and disability, and some would also say under sexual orientation. As I say, if that is the case, then there is absolutely no harm, one would think, in simply adding belts to suspenders to make the protections even stronger and elevating and thereby educating on the issue.

Second, gender identity is not a disability. It is what someone simply is. It is who they are. The only thing that remotely “disables” trans people is the discrimination, violence and bullying that inhibits them from having full, safe and fulfilling lives in Canadian society.

Further, sexual orientation does not cover trans people because gender is very distinct from sexual orientation. If a transgender man, who has been born a woman but lives as a heterosexual man, is beaten for who he is, it is not a question of sexual orientation to him. In order to make that designation apply, he would literally have to lie about who he is.

That gender identity is not well defined in the bill is another argument that is used. I believe it to be a spurious argument. It is defined in the bill, as I pointed out earlier in reading the definition in the bill, and it is defined in many other places: medical, legal and psychological. Concessions and compromise were made in the house already on the issue of definitions. The designations of gender expression and gender variance were not included in the bill that has come to us in favour of a clear definition of gender identity.

In fact, gender expression was removed from the bill specifically because it had been there due to concerns about definitions and scope, prominently elevated, I think, by MP Shelley Glover who on receiving that amendment to the bill then voted for it.

This is, therefore, a particularly focused bill, focused on a well- accepted and clearly defined concept of gender identity. The act’s definition of gender identity has not been made up in a vacuum nor is it new. The human rights commissions and courts have done much to define it and, in fact, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has defined it in exactly the same way as it is has been entered into Bill C-279.

Gender identity is linked to a person’s sense of self, and a sense of being male or female. A person’s gender identity is different from his or her sexual orientation, in turn, which is also protected under the code, but people’s gender identity may be different from their birth-assigned sex.

There is also the default to disaster defence. That is the defence against this bill that it will lead to the bathroom concern, that somehow men will be able to dress up as women and enter a women’s washroom in order to watch or assault women and use this bill as a defence.

In fact, this is simply and utterly not the case. Trans people are way more likely to suffer assault than ever to perpetrate it. Randall Garrison, the author of the bill in the house, contacted the jurisdictions in the United States that have had these provisions in place for extended periods of time. California, Iowa, and the State of Washington replied to him. All of them reported that there had been no instances of attempts to use the protections for transgendered people for illegal or illegitimate purposes. There have been no instances — zero, none.

We only need to consider that any such activity, as is contemplated in this bathroom defence, or bathroom concern, would be so clearly criminal that no court would absolve it on this basis. Put another way, why would we risk discrimination against any law-abiding person on the basis of their gender identity because someone who may not even be transgender might dress up like a woman and undertake a criminal act in a woman’s washroom? No one should be held hostage to the actions of someone else, certainly someone whom they do not even know or have the remotest possibility of influencing. Catch and convict those who do perpetrate criminal activities and protect the rest.

There is also this zero sum game concern, that this is a corollary to the disaster defence, that if the protections in this bill are given to transgender people, everyone else will lose, but it is simply is not the case. It simply defies logic that the gender identity of a transgender person can in any way diminish someone else’s life, unless someone, as I say — a man dressing up as a woman, whatever their gender identity is — would perpetrate in a criminal way, and that would be clearly criminal and clearly distinct from what would be protected in this act.

There is a point that was made in a letter that many of us are receiving from a certain group. I say that because the letters are always the same. The concern expressed there, again, in an argument against this Bill C-279, is that somehow the definition is too subjective. It relates to a subjective state of mind, a sense of self, and how we could ever enshrine that or capture that in law. Of course, we accept absolutely outright that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Well, that, too, is something that is very, very deeply subjective and deeply personal, and we have had no problem defining discrimination against people on the basis of their religion. Not only that, and this may be an esoteric point, but it is not really the definition of how the transgender person feels about his or her gender identity; it is how the person who is discriminating or even being violent against that person feels about whatever it is he or she thinks that identity is. Of course, that raises a question that so often is addressed and handled in law, and that is the question of intention and of state of mind. Certainly, in the Criminal Code, there is a defence between certain levels of criminal activity based upon whether you had intention or not. The courts are always defining intention.

I set aside the argument that somehow this is too subjective. It is not. It is clearly defined within the law, it is clearly defined within the procedures of law and it will not and has not been a problem.

There is also the fear that the inclusion of gender identity in Canada’s hate speech laws may spark vexatious litigation, thereby creating a chill on free expression, but again, that is without foundation. On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently narrowed limitations on hate speech in the Whatcott case to focus on the kind of speech that promotes hatred, specifically leading to discrimination, without limiting less intense and less pernicious forms of speech.

The Criminal Code has a built-in filtering mechanism, in addition, that requires the Attorney General’s consent for prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred under subsection 319(2). Clearly, there is a review of whether a prosecution would be warranted or ruled vexatious.

In conclusion, I would like to ask this question: Why do we not just fast—forward this? We are going to do this one day anyway. History tells us that we go through this cycle of delay with so many of these issues. It took 75 years to get women the vote, and then probably 100 years to get Aboriginal people the vote.

Notably, and most recently, we can see this kind of cycle of delay and overcoming argument after argument with gay marriage, and the default to disaster position was trotted out in that debate by opponents as well. It would ruin the family and the institution of marriage — this went on for years — and helped delay the passage of gay marriage legislation, and, of course, gay marriage has damaged neither marriage nor the family. It has enriched our society, it has enriched our culture and it has enriched many families and the lives of many people.

I remember speaking to an MP recently who voted against gay marriage, and he said to me: You know, of all the things I have done in politics the one I really regret is that I did not vote for gay marriage. That is just short years after having voted against it.

It is instructive to note that 100 years ago a woman wearing pants would have been highly scandalous and how that has changed. Anything that makes for a safer, more accepting society inevitably makes for a better place to raise a family and build a marriage, create a strong community and create a healthier society. We took decades to accord the vote to women and Aboriginal peoples, to get to gay marriage and so many other steps we have taken along, confronting the frontiers of the equality of rights issues, but we always, in the end, get to the right thing. Why do we not just fast-forward past the arguments now, past the barriers, past the obstacles, avoid at least some of the pain and anguish otherwise to be suffered by trans people in the future if this is not passed and give this recognition and protection to these Canadians who are asking us for our help?

At the core of this issue, in many respects, is bullying, and a defence against bullying, elevating once again that it is wrong, needs to be dealt with and understood. We are all suffering the tragedy with the Parsons family, whose daughter committed suicide recently because of bullying. She suffered untold, unacceptable, horrible bullying and worse, and, not to diminish her experience, but trans people experience very much the same thing frequently, often on a daily basis. It is bullying, and it results in the kind of event that has happened to the Parsons family and that young woman.

What we know is that societies have to confront issues of discrimination all the time, that they are richer, safer, more understanding, more loving and compassionate societies if did they do that. Every time we have to confront an equality issue, there is a question of whether it is as important or significant or whether there are irrefutable arguments against it, but that is simply a condition of these issues. There is disagreement about these based on prejudices, biases and misunderstandings, but I reiterate that we have the chance to fix this, and that in the House of Commons they crossed party lines to do that, and 16 members of Parliament on the Conservative side voted with the opposition. Two of them, at least, were cabinet ministers. As I have been polling members of the Senate, I have had a tremendous response, and, to this point, I have spoken to or had email conversations exchanged with 13. I have had 10 say, yes, they will support the bill; I have had 2 say they want to consider it further; and I have had 1 say he is concerned that gender expression is not in the bill, and it is not.

I think the prospect is for us to work together on both sides, all parties in the Senate, to do something that is immeasurably important that will elevate our society once again, that will provide leadership on rights, equality, justice and fairness in Canada and in the world. It will be something we can simply give to friends, neighbours and colleagues who are transgendered people who are asking us for our help. I am asking honourable senators to vote for Bill C-279 and give them that help.

Abundant life teachings were a loose offshoot of faith-healing, in which congregations were told to put their finances and trust in God and he would consequently bless them exponentially, in return.  If you had only a dollar to your name, you give that dollar to God and he’ll find a way to give you much more in return — a twisting of the parable of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44), changing the valuing of the poor that Jesus-the-man intended into a give-everything ideal that could be taken advantage of in the name of Jesus-the-legend.  There could be no excuse, then, for holding back the amount one tithed, in order to do things like pay the rent and bills, or to buy groceries.

Heads, we were right; tails, you were wrong.

It became another weapon in the shame machine, too.  Abundant life teachings implied that the poor were poor because they were sinners, were irresponsible, lazy.  And if you as a Christian gave abundantly to the church but saw no reward in return, then you needed to search your heart, because it meant that you were holding something back.  It meant that there was some sin, some doubt, some laziness, some guilty pleasure, some impure thought that held you back, and that God therefore would not reward you until it was flushed out and addressed.  And in this way, you were to give everything, and if you saw no return on it, it was your own fault.  A shyster’s dream.

Abundant life philosophy became a part of charismatic philosophy, one of the foundations for what is called the New Apostolic Reformation, or Seven Mountains Dominionism, a kind of roadmap for the Evangelical extreme, fundamentalist Catholicism and other allies to try to achieve theological-based governance.  And this is where it becomes necessary to parse things once again, because I’m referring to narrow branches of philosophy within a faith, and not the whole faith itself.  This becomes blurred, because many of these leaders pass themselves off as speaking for their faith authoritatively, and few actually challenge them on that.  I say this repeatedly in my blog because I believe it’s important that the specific abusive exploitations of Christianity that I single out not be conflated with Christianity itself, and by extension, with all Christians.

Abundant life teachings became a boon to some in the corporate sector, and had a lot to do with the growing together of dominionist doctrine and the Ayn Rand survival-of-the-fittest beliefs of the corporate class.  Abundant life philosophy taught that the rich were rich because they were worthy in the sight of God, and blessed accordingly… a self-aggrandizing patronization that was easy to believe, reflecting the self-important self-image of many financial elites.  And it absolved those who subscribed to abundant life teachings of feeling any social responsibility toward the poor.  Poverty was for the weak, the unworthy, the lazy, the irresponsible… for those who deserved it.  It fit the belief among the rich that anyone could be rich if they simply worked hard enough at it, or believed in God enough — something that fails to take into account the lack of opportunity and constant obstacles faced by the poor.

In case it’s not clear in my writing, I’m not talking about a conspiracy.  There might be another name for it out there, but I call it “coinciding interest opportunism,” the tendency of self-interested parties to move toward policies, beliefs and tactics that suit those interests, resulting in the merger we’re seeing between the top one percent of wage earners and dominionist religion.  The latter provides not only an affirmation of the growing class divide as though it’s pre-ordained by Christ, it also provides a mechanism to devalue the poor, perpetuate shame and keep adherents submissive and believing in the rightness of that submission.

And using abundant life -style teachings, even something as evil as slavery can be rationalized.

Easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for the meek to inherit the earth… or something like that.

Vyckie at RH Reality Check pointed to a video today that vividly illustrates the convergence between far-right religious fundamentalism and the Any Rand -style corporate opportunism of the upper upper upper class.  It’s a sermon posted online, which expounds on Proverbs 11:29, which reads:

He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind,
And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.

On the basis of this scripture, Joe Morecraft of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church teaches his congregation that in godly cultures, slavery is God’s chosen fate for the morally deficient:

“There IS a place for slavery, then, in godly cultures.  It’s the only place you can keep a fool under wraps.  It’s the only way you can keep a man from ruining other peoples’ families…”

Morecraft’s church is located in Cumming, Georgia, so there’s quite likely an undercurrent of racism throughout the sermon.  But race isn’t addressed directly at all; only through dog whistles and appealing to parishoners’ assumptions about those he defines as fools.  Interestingly, the language he uses is more often the language used to target LGBT people (i.e. about family) than racial groups.

The video clocks in at 5:50 long, and provides a stunning lesson in the way evil can be rationalized through the use of scripture.  It’s worth watching in full:

How prevalent is this kind of belief?  Well, if you look at all of Christianity, then not very.  But if you look within the narrow, vocal stream of North America’s far right Evangelicals in particular, it’s probably a lot more common than most would want to believe.  Morecraft is hardly a major name among theocrats, although his church is apparently the progenitor of an offshoot of Presbyterianism that now encompasses 12 churches.  His sermon is notable, though, as an example of the ideas that pervade pulpits in average neighbourhood churches — at least in southern states.  While theocrats aren’t usually as blunt and bold as, say, Bryan Fischer, the attitude that equates poverty with sinfulness has become pervasive in the increasingly consolidated far right.

And it’s helped to make religion a tool in the arsenal of corporate social engineers.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project Dented Blue Mercedes)

One of the clearest examples of late is RoadKill Radio’s interview with Jim Hnatiuk, who is the leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.  Hnatiuk, of course, has a vested interest in dissuading far-right conservative voters from supporting Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, but what’s noteworthy is the particular aplomb with which RKR commentators lead the discussion, and continue what appears to be an ongoing conversation among dominionist-leaning (those who seek to legislate their morality) Evangelicals.  (Incidentally, the RKR commentators also indicate their support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that same webcast)

The growing discontent with the Office of Religious Freedom parallels an increased dissatisfaction with the Harper government on other fronts.  Anti-abortion Members of Parliament have been breaking ranks and speaking in defiance after the Prime Minster’s Office quashed a motion that sought to reopen the abortion debate in the guise of condemning sex-selective abortion.  The Supreme Court’s decision partially upholding hate speech legislation against Bill Whatcott has rankled many and been characterized as curtailing religious freedom, as well.  In the case of the Office of Religious Freedom, RKR’s Ron Gray dismisses it as pandering and “window dressing to attract Canadians, people of faith.”  Hnatiuk seems to object to the image of religious diversity projected during the launch, before characterizing the Office as a deflection from these and similar events (at 8:46 in the video):

When I saw the office being established… and I looked on the website of some of the presentations that were taking place around its establishment with all of these minority faiths standing behind the Prime Minister and I said “Oh my goodness, they’re actually believing that they’re going to benefit from this and that this is all about them and not about more votes and not about the attacks on the Christian freedom that we have in Canada….”

The Harper Conservatives have been coming to an ideological crossroads for some time, now, one that many predicted when the party achieved its majority government, but realized that it could lose power just as quickly if it appeared too radically conservative on social issues.  Theocons became energized at the thought of being now able to legislate according to ideology, only to face the realization that the Conservatives are more concerned with maintaining power.

Only weeks before the ORF, Whatcott and sex-selective motion controversies, the Harper government came under fire for a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) donation of $560,000 for Crossroads Christian Outreach in Uganda, given that the organization had an anti-gay position statement on its website, and was doing work in a nation where anti-gay positions have fomented a volatile culture of violence and hatred toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people.  In classic Conservative fashion, Julian Fantino ordered a review, and then reported it completed, later that evening:

“… Minister Fantino’s office contacted LifeSiteNews Monday night to say that the review was complete and Crossroads’ funding would remain in place.”

MPs have demanded a full audit of CIDA, but that is unlikely, now that the entity is being folded into the department of Foreign Affairs.  It remains to be seen what will be made of the report coming down shortly which notes how funding to theological groups have risen significantly, while funding to non-theological groups has stagnated:

Some examples: Africa Community Technical Services received $ 655,000 from CIDA in 2010, almost three times more than in 2005. On its website, the NGO says it carries out its duties “under the authority of the scriptures” and “seeks to glorify our Lord Jesus.”

Cause Canada says: “We pray that our identification with Jesus, our concern for justice and our practical demonstration of God’s love [...] attract people to Christ,” on its website. This Alberta NGO received $ 483,000 from CIDA in 2010, an increase of 32% compared to 2005.

This rise in money to religious groups also comes at the expense of womens’ programs, which have been shut out in many cases:

Then there’s the $495,600 CIDA grant to Wycliffe Bible Translators of Calgary, which works so that aboriginal people in far-flung corners of the world can read the scriptures in their native languages.“It’s okay to translate the Bible,” says Nicole Demers “But there are aboriginal women here who are dying.”

In fact, adds Demers, groups seeking CIDA funding are being told to leave the phrase “gender equity” out of their grant applications.

And it’s becoming clear that the controversies are only going to get rockier for the Conservatives as people become more aware of them and as the Canadian social landscape becomes even more polarized.

So it’s significant that Harper’s flagship promise to theological conservatives is floundering.  Because as Jim Hnatiuk points out, these were the expectations of something like an Office of Religious Freedom (at 6:14 in the video):

Predominantly, worldwide, we see the whole issue of the Islamic worldview being predominantly the ones that are persecuting Christians — and others, and other faiths as well, but you know, by and large, it’s Christians out there.  So if that is, if they’re going to be setting up an Office of Religious Freedom that can, they have to be saying, you know, in one sense, we’re going to really speak out against these… this, uh Islamic uh what do they call it a [could not make this word out]…  

So if our government is saying that they’re going to be, I guess my point is, fight against, fight for religious freedom, they’re gonna be, they’re saying we’re going to start fighting against these Islamic regimes…

Best laid plans, and all…

(Crossposted to Rabble.ca)

SIMPSON: The Minister responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom is Minister Baird, am I not right?  And Minister Baird has recently been in the news for two important issues.  Wasn’t he the one who condemned and vilified a Christian organization that received $500,000 in funding to help drill wells in… a third-world country… because they had issues related to Biblical truths on homosexuality on their website?  And is this same Minister Baird who’s responsible for this Office of Religious Freedom that I believe gave $200,000 to a group in Uganda to fight Christians that were trying to bring in laws that would help curb the epidemic of death as related to AIDS and HIV in that country…

GRAY: And the only country in sub-Saharan Africa that has succeeded in reducing the rate of AIDS in…

SIMPSON: Oh well, minor details, there you go Ron, the truth, again, that’s not allowed…

The first organization Simpson referred to was Crossroads, of course, and the issue about Crossroads’ website statement on homosexuality was that those kinds of views have been fueling the anti-gay hatred that led to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and an intensified environment of homophobic hatred and violence in Uganda.  The second group referenced is an initiative to counter the anti-gay fear and hatred pervading that nation.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been more commonly referred to as the “Kill the Gays” bill, although there is some debate about whether the death penalty will still be in the final draft.  Here are the other things it contains:

• A definition of “homosexuality” which is so vague that almost anyone could be convicted of it;
• A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad. If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply. Proponents of the bill represent aggravated homosexuality as referring to pedophilia, but it actually also includes people who are afflicted with HIV (whether they were aware of it or not), who have sex with a person who has a disability (whether the act was consensual or not), and “serial” commission of any of the included and overly-vague offenses) — having gay sex more than once would be included;
• A weird “intent to commit” clause that could open any physical contact to interpretation;
• A financial incentive for people to accuse others of trying to seduce them;
• The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people (via a strange reinterpretation of the word “brothel”);
• A 3-year sentence for officiating a same-sex marriage, and a life sentence for being in a same-sex marriage or presenting a same-sex partner as a spouse (it’s not specified whether said marriage needs to occur in Uganda, but keep reading…);
• The criminalization of advocacy for (or even defending) an LGBT person, with a sentence of 5 – 7 years;
• The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding, who rents a room to a gay person, who advocates for LGBT people, or who commits any of the other above acts, with a sentence of up to 3 years;
• The criminalization of any of the above offences regardless of whether or not they occur in Uganda, provided they involve a Ugandan citizen, or a portion of the offense occurs within Uganda (i.e. the “failure to report” part). Extradition demands are also included;
• The nullification of any treaties or portions of agreements which run contrary to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill; and
• The granting of wide, sweeping powers to the Minister of Ethics and Integrity Minister to enforce the act, effectively giving the power to initiate a witch hunt.

Male homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonial British rule in the 19th Century, and is already punishable by up to life imprisonment. In 2000, wording was amended so that lesbianism could be criminalized as “gross indecency between two persons of the same sex,” which carries a term of seven years’ imprisonment. So all of the above are in addition to this status quo.

So that’s the bill that Kari Simpson and Ron Gray are cheering on. While it’s possible that they are unaware of some or all of the things in that bill, I’d consider it unlikely, given their converations with Scott Lively, who has been an occasional interviewee at RKR and who advocates for things like total criminalization of LGBT advocacy.

Incidentally, Gray is wrong about Uganda’s progress in the fight against AIDS.  From the UNAIDS World AIDS Day Report, 2012:

In West and Central Africa, Ghana was at the top of the list with a drop of 66% followed by Burkina Faso at 60% and Djibouti at 58%. The Central African Republic, Gabon, Rwanda and Togo, achieved significant declines of more than 50%. Other countries with significant declines in the region include Burundi, Cameroon, Mali and Sierra Leone where the decline was more than one third. Ethiopia achieved a 90% reduction in the rate of new HIV infections in the last decade. Despite a 25% reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, the region accounted for 72% of all new HIV infections worldwide in 2011.

In fact, the report has indicated that Uganda’s problem with HIV has been getting worse, and attributes it to declining condom use.

Ron Gray is a former leader of the Christian Heritage Party.  Kari Simpson is a Vancouver-based activist with Culture Guard, a group that has influenced Parents’ Voice and other groups across Canada that are fighting against LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education.

“Randall Garrison’s bill was supported by the New Democrats, the majority of Liberals (Judy Sgro and John McKay abstained), the Bloc Quebecois, Bruce Hyer, Elizabeth May and, by my unofficial count, 17 Conservative MPs: Erin O’Toole, Bernard Trottier, Terrence Young, David Wilks, Laurie Hawn, Michael Chong, Chris Alexander, Shelly Glover, Kellie Leitch, Cathy McLeod, Deepak Obhrai, Gerald Keddy, Jim Flaherty, John Baird, James Moore, Lisa Raitt and John Duncan.”

Before the Third Reading vote, there were three votes on clusters of amendments:

• Amendment cluster one, Division no. 642 (defining Gender Identity as per the first half of the Yogyakarta definition): 152 to 134.
• Amendment cluster two, Division no. 643 (dropping gender expression, and adding classes that have already been added to human rights legislation since the bill was originally drafted): 148 to 140.
• Report Stage, Division no. 644 (concur the bill in with the amendments): 150 to 137

If you’re wondering how your MP voted on the amendments, today’s Hansard is up.  No one paired in any of the votes (so in answer to one query, no, Justin Trudeau didn’t pair to make up for not being present), although there were some abstentions from the votes on amendments. Earlier in the day, Rob Anders tabled the notorious poll / petition which he actively solicited responses for through his website:

“Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present, on behalf of thousands of people who sent these to my office, petitions in opposition to Bill C-279, otherwise known as “the bathroom bill”, that would give transgendered men access to women’s public washroom facilities. These constituents feel that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that would come from giving a man access to women’s public washroom facilities. I present thousands of signatures on behalf of the riding in Calgary West, and I know that there are many others that have gone to other members in this place.”

The votes at Third Reading are as follows:

Yea

Alexander
Allen (Welland)
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Baird
Bélanger
Bellavance
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Chong
Choquette
Chow
Christopherson
Cleary
Comartin
Côté
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dion
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Flaherty
Fortin
Freeman
Fry
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Glover
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John’s East)
Hawn
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret’s)
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leitch
Leslie
Liu
Mai
Marston
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McLeod
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Obhrai
O’Toole
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Raitt
Rankin
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sellah
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Stanton
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trottier
Turmel
Valeriote
Wilks
Young (Oakville)

Nay

Ablonczy
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Bateman
Benoit
Bergen
Bernier
Bezan
Block
Boughen
Braid
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Clarke
Clement
Crockatt
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Dykstra
Fast
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harper
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hayes
Hillyer
Hoback
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kent
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leef
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O’Connor
Oliver
O’Neill Gordon
Opitz
Paradis
Payne
Poilievre
Preston
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

No, I’m not talking about the human rights bill that opponents have tried to tag with that nickname — C-279, which proposes to clarify and enunciate legal protections for most transsexual and transgender Canadians (although the removal of the class “gender expression” has opened some doubt).  Although C-279 says nothing about washrooms, opponents have tried to fearmonger about bathrooms, conflate trans people with sexual predators, and/or claim that human rights inclusion would somehow grant legal cover to predators.  Bill C-279 passed, today, on a vote of 149 to 137, after first having amendments made to it.  It proceeds to the Senate for ratification.

No, what I’m referring to is in fact a bathroom bill.

The State of Arizona has proposed a bill that is eerily reminiscent of the notorious SB 1070 “papers please” law that the U.S. Supreme Court had to rule on in 2012.  And this afternoon, the Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee was scheduled to discuss Senate Bill 1432 — a totally innocuous bill which would require the Arizona State Board of Massage Therapy to appoint an Executive Director and outline the Board’s purpose and funding.  However, an emergency amendment to it (text) would make it possible for anyone to demand to see a person’s birth certificate, and have them charged with disorderly conduct if their gender marker doesn’t match the washroom’s gender designation.

The bill would make it a class 6 felony to use a public washroom while trans, a crime punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to $2,500.  In Arizona, a class 6 felony conviction remains on a person’s permanent record, their right to vote is rescinded, potential employers are made aware of the conviction and can require an explanation, various licenses can be refused by the State, federal and state aid and other social assistance can be refused, rent can be denied, and one is banned from ever holding public office.

And it actually has a chance of passing, although it’s dwindling given the sudden media attention.

Rep. John Kavanagh introduced the amendment yesterday, in response to the City of Phoenix’s passage of an ordinance which widened human rights protections to include trans people, among others:

“What about the woman that are waiting in line to use the women’s restroom? There is a long line. They go into the men’s restroom. That’s against this law, isn’t it?” asked CBS 5′s Greg Argos. “Technically it is, but look, police use discretion every day,” Kavanagh responded.

“This is designed to protect young children from being exposed to the other gender in their fullness in inappropriate situations. I’m just restoring sanity, because the Phoenix bill turned gender upside down,” he continued.

You see, during the “bathroom bill” panic dredged up in Phoenix (much like the potty fearmongering circulating in Canada around C-279), legislators discovered that there never has been any legislation in place to bar trans people from using restrooms.  Consequently, trans people have been using gender-congruent bathrooms for decades.  For that matter, over 180 jurisdictions provide protections, going as far back as 1975, without those human rights protections ever being used to legalize or enable an assault in a washroom.  When washroom panic was raised in Baltimore, Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger released a public statement to attest that trans-inclusive legislation has not led to any such bathroom assaults, there.

On the contrary, Baltimore had been the scene of a brutal assault of a trans woman outside a public washroom. The incident garnered national attention, after amused staff at a McDonald’s cheered the fight on, recorded it and posted it on YouTube.

So with that kind of lengthy record of non-issues, Kavanagh just knew that Arizona is due for a potty incident.  Naturally, trans peoples’ access to public washrooms had to be stopped right away.

Antonia D’orsay, Executive Director of This Is HOW points out some of the implications of the emergency amendment (plus more background):

• “… The bill makes it a crime for a Transgender person to follow accepted and proven medical treatment protocols that have been employed for over 50 years and are demonstrated to be the only effective and ethical remedy.

• The bill makes it legal to engage in the abuse and neglect of children who are gender variant, and stops them from being able to follow medical guidelines supported by every reputable pediatric organization in the nation.

• The bill runs directly counter to Supreme Court decisions relating to the legality of using someone’s appearance for the purposes of discriminating against them

• The bill is in opposition to the 5^th and 14^th Amendments to the United States Constitution by creating a burden of inequality on all Arizonans.

• The bill is unnecessary and untested.

• The bill requires that everyone in the state of Arizona be required to present their birth certificate, on demand, to anyone with authority at any time, or risk arrest – even if they have a birth certificate that is in accordance with such.”

Abby Jensen notes how this legislation would be likely applied subjectively:

“How would such a law be enforced? By every overzealous restroom patron, security guard, business owner or mere passerby who decides that someone they see entering a restroom doesn’t conform to their notions of how a “man” or “woman” should look and complains to police. In other words, trans men, women and children, butch lesbians, feminine gay men, and straight, cisgender people who violate societal gender norms in some way can be harassed to prove their right to do what every other citizen takes as a given – the right to use a restroom for its intended purpose without harassment…”

Here’s the good news (maybe): SB 1432 has been postponed until next Wednesday, due to a committee procedural conflict.  Which might give some time for sanity to prevail.

And by then, Arizona’s state legislature may have found some other puppies to kick.

I thought this portion of a lecture given by Robert Sapolsky at Stanford University, given in 2010, would be worth posting for folks who found this blog recently, and/or aren’t familiar with some of the medical discoveriess since the late 1990s.  It gives a very quick overview of some of the developments that have been happening in studying transsexualism.

This comes via Transadvocate, and h/t Zoe Brain.

As a counterpoint, I was going to link to an article I wrote called Why “Born This Way” Is Not the Point, only to discover I’ve apparently never archived it on this blog (either that, or I’ve written so much that I’ve lost the ability to keep track of it all).  So here it is.

Why “Born This Way” Is Not the Point

In her anthem coming soon to an ear near you, Lady Gaga asserts that whether “black, white, beige, chola descent” or “gay, straight or bi / lesbian, transgendered life,” we should all be proud, because we’re just “Born This Way.”  The song was unquestionably well-intended, but there is a danger in basing the acceptance and validity on whether or not characteristics can be attributed to an inborn trait.

“Born This Way” is the inevitable product of an ongoing debate where legitimacy hinges on whether or not something is biological and intrinsic, or perceived to be a life choice.  For those of us who are trans or queer, the far right version of the birth versus choice narrative claims that we are trans, lesbian or gay purely by choice. Underscoring this is the implication that if something is based on choice, then it is not something the right needs to accept or respect.  From the perspective of someone who is part of both the trans and larger lesbian / gay / bisexual / trans (LGBT) community, I understand when we react to this debate to point out that we never chose to be as we are, and that it’s not something we can switch on or off like a light.  But doing so misses the point entirely.

There is certainly reasonable precedent to believe that biology is a factor in shaping LGBT people.  In the case of transsexuals, a growing volume of science since the mid 1990s has demonstrated frequent and repeatable higher-than-typical occurrences between some genetic characteristics and transsexuality.  Brain structure studies have yielded results in which transsexuals’ brains far more often resembled those of their identified gender than their birth sex, even though there is still wide-ranging debate on how much difference that really causes between men and women.  And research into phenomena like phantom limb syndrome has uncovered the likelihood of the brain having a “body map,” which has been proposed as an explanation as to why transsexuals strongly believe that their birthed sexual characteristics aren’t what they’re supposed to be.

Yet something that bothers me (and isn’t mentioned much in the quest for biological legitimacy) is that clear proof of a biological origin would not only fail to convince those who hate LGBT people, it is also not the holy grail it’s made out to be.

There is ongoing debate about how much of human behaviour stems from biology, how much from conditioning and socialized expectations, and how much from choice.  It’s probably not a good idea to dismiss any of the three.  Although they are vastly different from being LGBT, Bipolar disorder and some forms of autism have been demonstrated to have some form of biological causation or linkage, so there are certainly precedents.  So we play the opposite response: “it’s genetic.”  Well, maybe it is, at least in part, but neither chosen lifestyles nor biologically-driven identities of themselves validate or disqualify value in a human being.  In the long run, we might not exactly be comfortable with the implication of imparting all things biologically-connected with legitimacy.  Imagine a finding in which pedophilia is shown have some genetic trigger.  Certainly, many predators describe a compulsion they feel is intrinsic and beyond their control, so it’s not unthinkable that there could be a biological component.  But it would be repulsive to excuse the molestation of children for this sort of reason.  And at that point, consistency fails.

So biological causation only proves that we exist.  We cannot depend on it for rights or to change hearts and minds.  We cannot rely on it to find pride in our lives.  It’s fascinating, marginally validating, but it does not provide the standard against which we measure ourselves as humans.  Biological predestination is a poor measure of who is entitled to human rights or whether or not someone has a legitimate right to be.  We recognize that people deserve respect, freedom, access to employment and services, and to be treated as equals regardless of any disability, poverty, class, body image, level of education, faith and several other factors that are not inherently predetermined.  The “choice invalidation” argument seeks to undermine far more than the acceptance of LGBT people.  Discrimination does not occur purely because of the colour of someone’s skin — rather, colour is one of many indicators that are used to trigger presumptions about an individual’s culture, lifestyle, behaviours and tendencies.  You hear this excuse all the time: “I have nothing against them, but you know what they’re like….”  Prejudiced people are blind to their prejudice because they’ve seduced themselves into believing that what they’re reacting to are associated choices and not really the trait itself, when they’re acting on the unspoken and often inaccurate smorgasbord of inventions that go with it.  When we insist on biological validation, we are playing along with an ideology that makes soft excuses for bigotry, rather than confronting the impulse to discriminate.

And for that matter, how much of the “born this way” argument boils down to people feeling like they have to make excuses and seek societal forgiveness for existing, rather than pointing the finger back at bigotry?

The concept of human rights, of course, was supposed to address the extent to which hatred between diverse human communities manifested.  Human rights legislation was a response to the dramatic and horrific manifestation of hatred during the mass genocide that occurred in Nazi Germany — but it also recognized that mass extermination is not a new phenomenon, and that modern society cannot be fooled into believing that it would never occur again.  The principle is that all people should be treated as equals, but we know from experience that if we leave it up to everyone’s discretion, enormous imbalances happen.  Even with human rights legislation, there are glaringly different ways that privileged and non-privileged classes are treated.  So human rights legislation is structured in a way that identifies various classes that should not be used as bases to include or exclude — to accept or to hate — people.  The classes are, of themselves, neutral (for example, “race” covers white people as much as anyone else), so contrary to another modern myth, there are no “special rights.”  It becomes the role of the judiciary to balance the rights of the minority with the rights of the majority.  In an ideal world, of course, we would all realize that all are created equal, but in practical reality, reminders have to be codified into law, because there is always disagreement about who should be treated fairly and what the limit to fairness should be.  At the furthest extreme, without rights legislation requiring the legal system to take occurrences seriously, it becomes common for people to excuse violence or murder of minorities as being somehow justified or inconsequential, thereby devaluing the lives of the victims.

At some point, we need to realize that risk-conscious, responsible, respectful and genuinely consensual behaviour need to be the standards by which we measure people — by their actions, rather than any assumptions associated with any traits… even those that are not necessarily intrinsic, genetically-determined ones.

More twists and turns than a mangled slinky.

It’s official, the amendments to drop gender expression and define gender identity have been made.  To me, whatever happens, it will all be bittersweet.

The debate, however, was very good.  Keep the kleenex close by.  From Hansard, here are the highlights:

David Anderson brings up the obligatory “bathroom bill” panic:

One concern is that the bill is unsettling to people. The author has really refused to talk about or deal with the potential implications and consequences of such wide-ranging and undefined legislation. My constituents, I have to say, do not see this as benign legislation because of the things we just talked about, in particular the fact that there is such a lack of definitional framework to the bill. What I am getting from my riding is that the constituents oppose it, but they do have some questions that I will pose on their behalf.

The first question to the member opposite is this: does he actually believe that there is no one who will try to abuse the situation that would be created by his deliberately vague legislative agenda?

That is what the member seemed to be saying when he spoke, but he has refused to address this criticism in his speech. It remains out there in the public’s mind, and I have heard that from my constituents.

Second, especially with regard to minors and adults, my constituents have questions about the power relationship that would exist in what in the past were basically private facilities that would now become very public facilities. They are asking what their obligations and rights would be. The failure to address these issues is really why the bill has become known as the “bathroom bill”. I do not think we can just brush off people’s concerns.

Sean Casey chided him for it while touching on the key points:

So in the context of this debate, which has at times been a vigorous debate and at times a debate with moments unworthy of this House, there are some who, contrary to evidence and facts, choose another path to make their case. They choose fear and innuendo, all the while claiming a moral high ground. They claim for themselves exclusivity to that which is right and decent, using language that is hurtful and demeaning. How can anyone claim to be of good heart or claim the virtue of “love thy neighbour” yet reduce this bill to gutter language when they call it “the bathroom bill”? It is an entirely offensive and erroneous implication to suggest that transgendered people would be lurking late at night in bathrooms should this bill pass.

Megan Leslie gave an emotionally charged speech, and since I don’t see a video to post yet, I’ll include it all right here:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Charlottetown for his speech. That was really incredible.

I am a trans rights activist. I have been working on the issue of transgender rights for many years in my community of Halifax, and I am an ally to the trans community. Years ago, when I was a law student, and then later when I was working at Dalhousie Legal Aid, I worked with NSRAP, the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project, and we developed a trans rights awareness program.

I had the opportunity to work with transgendered Nova Scotians to develop a presentation on trans rights. We actually presented to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission on the realities of being trans people, their experiences, day after day, within their communities, our communities, within their/our legal institutions and within their/our government institutions, because we do not realize, when we are cisgender, which is when our gender identity matches our biological sex, how often we get to take for granted our gender rights.

I had a transgender client who once asked me to write a letter on official legal aid letterhead that gave a legal opinion about her right to use the bathroom, based on case law. She would keep it in her purse and use it if she ran into problems. Imagine walking around with a legal document, a legal opinion, in one’s purse or wallet to settle disputes about the right to use a bathroom. Imagine the indignity of arguing this with mall security, with a bouncer, with classmates or co-workers, just to heed the call of nature. It could be at any time. It could be this afternoon. It could be tomorrow. It could be every day. It could be never. One just does not know when it is going to happen.

Imagine being pulled over by the police for speeding and answering questions about why the sex listed on one’s identification does not match one’s gender identity. Perhaps one’s birth name is called out at the doctor’s office, because one has to have sex reassignment surgery to change identification. Imagine what that would feel like. These small indignities happen every day to members of our community.

The bill does a small thing by adding trans rights to the Canadian Human Rights Act and by adding trans motivated hate to the hate crimes list. It is a small thing, but it is a magnificent thing.

I am pretty close to the trans advocate community at home, and we have had long discussions about the idea that adding trans rights to human rights legislation may not actually grant protections that members of the trans community do not already have. As we heard, there is ample case law to show that human rights commissions will fit trans rights into different categories that already exist. For example, when Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project made our presentation to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, it was strong and steadfast in its commitment to protecting trans rights and said that it would find a way to make it fit under another ground, but what ground? How do we protect the dignity of trans Canadians when we are asking them to fit their problem into the margins? How do we protect the dignity of trans people by making them look for their rights under another category, such as sex, when it is not about sex, or gender, when it is not about gender, or disability, when it is absolutely not a disability?

It is meaningful to look at rights and see ourselves there. It is important to know that we are protected, that we can hold up a human rights act and say, “I am protected. I am here in this document”.

Further to this argument, we heard evidence from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that fitting trans people into the margins now is not a guarantee that they will be fit into the margins in the future. Enshrining rights in legislation protects those rights, and trans Canadians need this protection.

The Canadian Police Association agrees. Today, president Tom Stamatakis spoke out in favour of this bill with a simple and beautiful statement that equality under the law is an important principle for Canada’s front-line police personnel to uphold. It is that simple.

My home province of Nova Scotia has had this debate in our legislature. I want to share a letter from Kate Shewan about how things have changed since this legislation was passed in our province.

I think we can learn from the Nova Scotia example, and I think we can learn from the members of our trans community who have had this experience.

She writes:

I’m a board member of Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project, an organization that advocates for the rights of the LGBT community. I’m also a trans-identified person. I’m writing to you in support of Bill C-279.

As a member of the trans community in Nova Scotia, where provincially we’ve benefited from the changes to the human rights act, I’ve seen first hand how this change can benefit individuals within the trans community, a community which has suffered significant discrimination.

The immediate change that I saw following the Nova Scotia legislation was a change in attitudes and a new confidence. Members of the trans community who had almost taken it for granted that they would be discriminated against in the employment market and other areas of society felt empowered and more confident, knowing with certainty that their rights were protected, and seeing that the challenges our community faces had been formally acknowledged. In a group that suffers significant unemployment, underemployment and disengagement from society in general, I believe this empowerment and confidence will help to give trans Canadians a better opportunity to reach their full potential, improve their employment and economic situations and become more engaged in the community.

It is important that these protections are also in place at the federal level, so that all trans Canadians can benefit from these changes….

Today is International Women’s Day, and I heard a lot of statements in the House about how far women have come in our fight for equality. I heard a number of references today to the Persons Case, a court case that ruled that we, women, were persons under the law.

The result of that case probably did not do much for women that week. It probably did not change their day-to-day experience. It did not mean that the next day all of a sudden women got to sit at the tables of decision making. It did not mean that the next day they started working outside the home and were paid wages equal to men’s, and it did not mean that domestic violence ended.

However, not long after that, some women got the right to vote. A woman could look at that document and know that in the eyes of the law, she counted.

In the lead-up to today, I got a lot of calls and emails from my community telling me why they thought I should support this bill. Of course everybody knew that I would, but they sent me such interesting things that I wanted to share a couple of them.

I had one community member who contacted me to say:

I’m trans, but have a good job, house, car, money in the bank…by all measure successful in most people’s eyes. (Not to boast) just trying to show that we are like most other people, just are part of a gender spectrum that is finally being recognized.

I also want to share a letter I received from the sexual orientation and gender identity division of the Canadian Bar Association. I was a member of that group when I was a law student. This is from the chair of the equality committee and the co-chairs of the sexual orientation and gender identity community. Here is just a shout-out to Amy Sakalauskas and Level Chan who are actually from Nova Scotia. I was happy that they have taken up this issue. They wrote:

Transgender Canadians are a minority who suffer profound discrimination, such as job losses, alienation from their communities, ridicule, harassment and inadequate health care services. They also disproportionately fall victim to hate crimes, including homicide.

They go on. It is these kinds of examples that make us realize we have to do something about this.The bathroom panic argument just does not wash. We have laws against peeping Toms. It is an illegal act. That argument does not wash here.An argument that does wash here is that recently I was at a community event and a young person came up to me. I do not really remember it. I do not remember if this person was a young man or a young woman, blond or brunette, but this person came up to me, took my hand and opened it, put something in my hand and closed it up. Then they left.I opened my hand and there was a tiny little note. It said:

Thanks for giving…[an eff] about trans people.

I think that is why we are here.

Michelle Rempel also gave an emotionally-charged speech.  As things were proceeding, folks on Twitter and news feeds were arguing over whether her words meant that she is or isn’t going to support the bill.  But in fact, it’s still not entirely clear.  Again, her comments are included here in full:

Mr. Speaker, I speak today to Bill C-279. I would like to thank the member for Halifax for some of her comments here today.

I have had the privilege of representing constituents in Calgary Centre North for nearly two years now. In this time, I have had the opportunity to review many pieces of legislation and debate both their merits and their flaws. As I have done so, I have been struck that oftentimes, we have to evaluate two components of legislation: the why of the bill and the how of the issue. Many times we disagree, sometimes vociferously, about the why. We have differing political ideology, thoughts on how public policy should be best utilized and thoughts on how this country should be governed. It is in this context that I first speak to the why of this bill.

After reading testimony from witnesses during this iteration of the bill and in the last Parliament, and after consulting with those who work with members of the trans community and members of the community itself, I am frankly shocked by the discrimination this group of people faces.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and witnesses to this bill at committee, and indeed members here today, have given this House so many examples that I cannot reiterate them. Suffice it to say that I would offer that the summary of evidence could read as follows: the trans community in Canada has, on frequent occasions, experienced elevated levels of sexual violence committed against members; frequent workplace discrimination and job loss based on gender; lack of clarity on health care provisions and sometimes access to health care; lack of clarity on processes related to obtaining identification documents; bullying in places of employment and educational institutions; discrimination in accessing housing accommodation; and numerous other incidents of discrimination.

Most importantly, they live with the consequences of these acts of non-compassion, of false assumptions that, simply by virtue of their state, they are sexually promiscuous, or more ludicrously, that they are criminal. In this, the trans community experiences very high levels of both depression and suicide. This is not acceptable to me, and this is the why of this bill. It is my hope that no one in the House, either on this side or the other side, could read the testimony, could talk to people in the community, and argue that this is acceptable or tolerable in our country.

The question set upon us as legislators is the how. How do we prevent these situations from occurring?

I have spent a lot of time on the how. I found that this bill seeks to address the how by addressing the following assumption, using the language of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca during the bill review at the Standing Committee on Justice, that “transgendered Canadians do not enjoy the same protection of their rights as other Canadians”.

This is a very serious charge that is worthy of study, as the ideas and values that are the heart of how our country operates, the freedoms it affords to all groups to worship without persecution, to seek prosperity in one’s field of work, to choose whom we love, and to speak with conviction on issues that impact our communities, are all based on the assumption that Canadians have equality of rights in freedom of expression and can do so without the threat of discrimination or violence to their person. However, to assess whether this bill provides an adequate how, I first evaluated the validity of this assumption.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had an exchange with the member for Edmonton—St. Albert at justice committee about this assumption. The member for Edmonton—St. Albert said:

Except now that the Canada tribunal has emphatically stated that there is no longer any doubt, I would suggest to you that your first hurdle has been cleared by precedent… There is now case law that supports the proposition that individuals who have a genuine gender identity disorder are entitled to human rights protection.

There have been numerous examples given in the House and at committee of case law that shows that this provision exists. I understand the member for Halifax when she says that she wants to see herself in that human rights bill. The case law does exist to show that it is there.

Mr. Ian Fine, the acting secretary of the human rights commission, stated the following, “the commission, the tribunal, and the courts view gender identity and gender expression as protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act”. Having said that, he also stated that “adding the grounds of gender identity and gender expression to the [Canadian Human Rights Act] would make the protection” of the transgender community explicit. The rationale that he stated for this necessity was as follows: “This would promote acceptance and send a message that everyone in Canada has the right to be treated with equality, dignity, and respect”. I do not disagree with the latter part of that statement. It gave me quite a bit of pause for thought, and that has been at the heart of my deliberations on the bill.

It could be argued that this is contradictory in some regard. Mr. Fine previously made a statement that the tribunal, the commission and the courts do view gender identity and expression as protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that somehow even though this protection exists, it does not send enough of a message to Canadians on this issue. While this contradiction may be well intentioned, I feel there are many examples where serious issues arise when legislators equate symbolism with social action or when we inadvertently dilute the role of social activists by being reactive to an issue with legislative symbolism.

The member for Halifax has my playbook because she stole my speech on International Women’s Rights Day. I would like to speak on the social action process for the struggle for female gender equality.

Even after laws were passed to enshrine women’s gender equality within our laws, the member is right; we did not see those changes happen overnight. In fact, lawsuits still had to be fought and won, offenders had to be charged, battles had to be waged to change workplace codes of conduct, and awareness training programs had to be crafted. I would like to highlight that in the British parliament, even after women had been elected, as little time ago as 1993, a woman in this place did not make it to a vote because she could not find a bathroom.

I have also stood in the House to highlight that sexism does happen with frequency in this country in spite of these laws. I am not trying to imply that the struggle for trans rights is directly concurrent with the struggle for women’s rights, but in my deliberations on the bill, I found there is a burden of evidence which suggests that case law does exist to provide the trans community with protection under the law against discrimination and violence. Here is my concern. In this fact, the how of this legislation may not achieve the ultimate solution to the why, in that it may place too much of an emphasis on symbolism over direct social action.

As always, the member for Halifax makes a very compelling argument.

A question that I have struggled with in evaluating the validity of the bill is what guidance we, as legislators, are truly giving judicial organizations in how to carry out the intentions of Parliament in this regard. The way the term “gender identity” is defined in the preamble of the bill, even with the amendments, played a large part in my decision to vote to study the bill further. I am still not entirely clear on how parliamentarians, the human rights tribunal, criminal courts, sentencing judges and the broader community at large will be required to interpret this term.

I am also not clear on the following key issues. What constitutes the scope of discrimination against someone based on his or her gender identity in the eyes of my colleagues, as legislators, of members of the trans community and the courts? What kind of speech based on someone’s gender identity could be considered hate propaganda? What does it mean in defined terms to have a bias based on a person’s deeply held internal and individual experience of gender?

Admittedly, the evaluation of this legislation has been very difficult for me because I believe that the why it presents is concerning. Any time we as parliamentarians are faced with clear situations where fear of differences or lack of awareness allow hatred to mushroom, we have to take note and ask ourselves what role we play in breaking down these barriers. This legislation has opened my eyes to the plight of a group of people in this country who experience extreme discrimination. Both sides of this debate should agree that equality and protection against harm are two fundamental values that all Canadians of any gender, any age, any background are entitled to.

However, as legislators we are also tasked with deciding if the proposed legislation is sound. Given the lack of clarity that I found in the bill, I do have concern about its viability and if the how will achieve what the community and Canadians hope for in addressing the why.

Raymond Côté (after relating some personal experiences) presented the theological case for — yes, for — the bill:

All of my colleagues in the House will agree that human dignity is non-negotiable. It is very simple. I would even add that the sanctity of human life is something we value so highly—at least we should—that we cannot put a price on defending it. We must never tolerate pettiness or compromise.

I have spoken about my faith before, and I want to share some of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine. It very clearly states that every human being has the unalienable right to exist and to have dignity within society. That represents a tremendous challenge, because it means that we must allow the right to be different, the right to a certain degree of dissidence, the right to go against the established norm and the right to go against the stream.

This also means that people like me, who have the privilege to have a favourable—even comfortable—place in society, must make concessions. I am very pleased to be able to reach out to a group in our society whose rights are too easily violated and to offer them some progress. It may not be perfect, but it is still progress.

Jinny Jogindera Sims concluded the debate by again evoking the struggle for women to be recognized as persons under law:

My colleague articulated beautifully the struggle that women have had. When we look at history, it was not that long ago that women were not recognized as persons. I challenge anyone in the room to think that we could be sitting in the House as women representing our ridings if that legislation had not been enacted and we had not been recognized as persons. That did not automatically get rid of all the discrimination and all the barriers and glass ceilings that exist. However, what it did do was to open up a pathway, and it took away the greatest barrier, which was to not be recognized at all.

This bill, in turn, would do exactly that. It says to the members of our transgendered community that they are part of this society and they are explicit in our human rights code. They do not have to hide, nor do they have to go looking to see which corner of the human rights code they fit in, nor do they have to see if there is a judge who is going to be favouring looking for a spot or fear a day when the judiciary could turn around and say it is not explicit and cannot be found in here, so they are not covered. It is to avoid that very situation that we have to have legislation like this.

… I do not know if members are aware, but I was a classroom teacher for a very long time. In that role, one of the things I discovered very early on in my teaching is that for children to be successful in life, they have to see themselves reflected, but they also have to feel themselves protected. When we have transgender young people in our community who do not feel protected explicitly in our law, we leave them vulnerable.

… It would be fitting if we could all vote for this measure unanimously, especially when we are on the eve of International Women’s Day. We would celebrate the fact that we have enshrined those rights into our legislation and into human rights.

Following this, the amendments were given a voice vote and accepted into the bill, and the Speaker announced that proceedings will resume on March 20th:

Normally, at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to standing Order 98, the divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, March 20, immediately before the time provided for private member’s business.

Previous records or notes:

• Second Reading debate part one,
• Second Reading debate part two,
• JUST Committee opening discussion (Sara Davis Buechner, Hershel Russell, Egale Canada),
• JUST Committee roundup (R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal),
• JUST Committee discussion filibuster,
• Thoughts on amendments,
• Submission of amendments,
• Report stage debate on amendments and bill part one.

The bill, which proposes to add trans people to human rights legislation, had an hour of debate at report stage.  Randall Garrison requested that amendments be added to the bill, and the Speaker decided that they should be debated and voted on by the House, prior to Third Reading.  This was the first hour of that, with a second to follow.  Consequently, we still didn’t get any yes / no answer on whether those changes would be made.  Garrison anticipates that the changes are needed in order to have enough multi-party support to pass the bill.

For folks confused by mention that there are nine amendments, that means that the text of the bill is amended in nine places.  What it accomplishes is to drop “gender expression,” to define “gender identity” (details and my take on those changes here), and to correct it by adding some classes that have already been added to existing legislation since Bill Siksay first composed the text of this bill (“marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered”).

Interestingly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Robert Goguen) and two other Conservative MPs (Dan Albas and David Anderson) cite four examples to claim that inclusion is not necessary.  They all avoided talking about outcomes, by using phrasing like “the court dealt with the complaint[s] using the ground of sex.”  There is a reason for this, because one was ultimately decided against a trans woman in the B.C. Court of Appeal (Nixon v. RR), and another may have been arbitrarily ignored by a direct order from the Harper Government (Kavanagh v. Correctional Services of Canada)… although there’s some uncertainty about what policy is actually being practiced in the correctional system, right now.  Ironically, half of the Conservatives’ own examples actually demonstrate why clarity is needed.

Several commentators referred to the testimony of representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, acknowledging that technically, transsexuals were already read into existing legislation.  Randall Garrison correctly notes that they (particularly Ian Fine) did so reluctantly, while also stating that clarification would be helpful.

MP Anderson kept falsely characterizing the bill as “expanding the definition of sexual orientation to gender expression and to gender identity.”  Anderson (who showed up to be part part of the attempt to filibuster the committee proceedings, despite the fact that he was not a voting member of the committee) had his speech cut short by the end of session, and he will be continuing when debate resumes.

Highlights and lowlights of the debate can be found in the Hansard (audio, starting after 4:30), but here are some excerpts:

Randall Garrison:

… As we have just heard, the package of amendments is quite complex, but it really only does two things. Nine amendments are required because of the complexity of legal drafting, but again, only two things are happening here.

The first is that the bill adds the definition of “gender identity”, which we just heard the Speaker read out in the House. The second is that the term “gender expression” is removed from the bill.

I hope this reassures those members who wanted a somewhat narrower bill, a bill that was somewhat easier to explain in public, and a bill that might rule out some of the more extreme concerns or fears that some people had. I believe that if we approve these amendments, we will have that bill in front of us.

There were some concerns about “gender expression” being less well defined in law and that this would somehow open the gates to abusive practices on the basis of the gender identity bill. I will be very frank and talk about the main one of those, which was the concern that somehow people could use this bill to gain illegitimate access to public bathrooms and change rooms in order to commit what would always be criminal acts of assault.

I contacted the jurisdictions in the United States that have had these provisions in place for a very long time. Four of those did reply, those being California, Iowa, Colorado and the state of Washington. All of them reported the same thing: there have been no instances in any of those states of attempts to use the protections for transgendered people for illegal or illegitimate purposes—no incidents, zero, none.

There have been concerns on the other side from members of the transgendered community or those who have gender variant expressions that they wish to carry out. To them I would say that this is a somewhat narrower bill, but we believe that it preserves the essence of the protections we are seeking here, which is that transgendered and gender variant persons should have the same rights as all other Canadians.

If these amendments are adopted, it would be a somewhat narrower bill than that passed by the previous Parliament.

I have to take a moment to pay tribute to former MP Bill Siksay, who brought that bill forward through the minority Parliament. However, the bill died on the order paper of the Senate as a result of an election call.

If we approve these amendments and we go on to adopt this bill, what is it that we would actually be doing here? I am arguing that we are simply completing the Canadian human rights agenda. This bill would create no special rights, no additional rights and no unusual rights, but would simply provide the same rights, no more and no less, to transgendered and gender variant Canadians.

Another argument against the bill has been that it is not necessary to have it, that somehow people are already protected in Canada. I have a legal answer to that, and then I have a practical answer to it.

The legal answer is that we heard from the Canadian Human Rights Commission in committee that it would be very useful to clarify the law by having this explicit mention of transgendered rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. It is true that in the past the Human Rights Commission and the tribunal have decided cases involving transgendered Canadians on the basis of sex discrimination; however, as they have pointed out, that is no guarantee that all future cases would meet the test of sex discrimination. Therefore, in order to make sure that all the possible issues that might arise are covered, it would be better to have an explicit statement in both the Canadian Human Rights Act and in the hate crime section of the Criminal Code….

Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):

… As I have said, the ground of sex is already in the act and has been used to address instances of discrimination against this group. The addition of gender identity is therefore unnecessary.

However, if its addition is not purely symbolic, as the sponsor tells us it is not, then we would ask ourselves this. If this ground were to be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, what sorts of new complaints of discrimination will be brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal? How will employers know what kinds of workplace behaviour and expression would be prohibited? The answers to these questions are not clear to me and they are questions that we should carefully consider…

Irwin Cotler:

… As I mentioned with respect to the exclusion of “gender expression”, it was initially my preference that both terms remain in the bill. Again, I am cognizant of the possibility that even in the absence of “gender expression”, the term “gender identity” might, through case law and through an appreciation of travaux préparatoires, eventually come to encompass part or all that would have been protected by the former.

… To start, they [opposing Conservatives] came with their own amendments, including a handful that only reinforced the status quo formula of “sex” and “disability”. Then there was a frivolous amendment exempting official Canadian sports authorities from the provisions of the bill, as if to contain some fictional mass of men trying to compete in women’s sports, and vice versa. Finally, there was an out-of-context amendment that sought to ensure that no part of the Canadian Human Rights Act could infringe upon the rights of aboriginal peoples. While I firmly believe that we should only enact legislation that is mindful of the rights of Canada’s aboriginal peoples, I found there was no reason to codify this specific protection into the act, as the charter supersedes any statutory act, which is clearly set forth in section 52 of the Constitution Act. It appeared that this, too, was a diversionary item…

Kennedy Stewart:

… Passing the bill into law would be an important step forward for Canadians expressing themselves as transgendered. Trans people have regularly been shown that they are denied things that we all take for granted, such as adequate access to health care and housing, the ability to obtain or change identification documents, access to washrooms and other gender stations, as well as very fundamental rights such as the ability to exercise the right to vote and to acquire and maintain meaningful employment…

… We need to do this in the spirit of the anti-bullying pink shirt day that we are seeing here in Canada. Wearing a pink shirt is a good thing. It shows that Canadians care. However, this is an opportunity to actually do something concrete, to change the laws of our country to make sure that people who are facing discrimination are no longer discriminated against, or if they are, that they have remedy within our legal system, whether it is the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code, in order to make sure that they obtain justice and are able to pursue their lives as they see fit.

What we need to take into account also is how the trans community is suffering under the current circumstances. Worldwide since 1970, 717 trans people have been reported as murdered. However, this of course is a severe undercount, because many countries do not collect adequate statistics in this area, nor do they correctly record violence against the trans community….

Dan Albas:

… By adding the proposed definition for the term “gender identity” in Bill C-279′s preamble, it remains unclear what situations it would cover and how the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, or the criminal courts and the sentencing judges, would interpret these terms. This gives rise to the potential for subjective interpretations. These interpretations do not provide clarity nor certainty. In the absence of having greater certainty and a clear definition, it is important to recognize that existing laws already do apply to discrimination against transsexuals…

Mylène Freeman:

… Dr. Shuvo Ghosh, who is a trailblazer in this field is a pediatrician, a developmental-behavioural pediatrician to be specific, and an assistant professor at McGill University and at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, noticed that he was seeing more and more transgendered children and decided that he would open a clinic to specifically support their needs. It is the first one of its kind, in fact. I am very happy and proud that it is in my province of Quebec and so close to my home in Montreal.

Dr. Ghosh wrote me this letter to share with the House:

 (quoting) To the Honourable Members of the 41st Parliament of Canada:

Last year when Bill C-389 passed its third reading in the House of Commons, many questioned the wisdom of enshrining “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the Canadian Human Rights Act and whether this was redundant given that “sex” is already protected. With the NDP’s Private Member Bill on Gender Identity now up for debate, these questions are once again being raised. As a paediatrician who cares for gender non-conforming children, adolescents and their families who are part of the roughly 1-2% of all Canadians with differences in their gender expression, I would like to highlight the main reasons why this issue is crucial for Canadian society.

While “gender identity” and “sex” are related terms, they are no synonymous. The most obvious example of this dichotomy is in children born with medical intersex conditions who identify more with one gender of another, or rarely, neither or both; but their physical sexual characteristics frequently do not correspond with their identity. Are we to conclude, then, that they fall outside the protection of the Human Rights Act because their “sex” is indeterminate or incongruent with their behaviour? Youth with any variation in their gender identity…have been shown, in numerous studies and in various clinical databases, to be the group most vulnerable to extreme and violent bullying, depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

Adolescents with gender variance are 14 times more likely to attempt suicide than any other sub-group of teens, including other recognized and protected vulnerable populations. They are also the most likely to be rejected by peers and family members, and often lacking even any legal recourse to simply “be” who they are, frequently enter a spiral of self-harm that can lead to substance abuse and alcoholism. This heartbreaking distress is seen and reported even in children as young as 4 years old who simply recognize that their gender identity does not correspond with their anatomic sex, and have asked their parents to help them die. So many families of gender variant kids experience severe discrimination, societal rejection, and serious psycho-social difficulty. This translates to higher levels of divorce, greater school and emotional problems in siblings, and severe marginalization. These families need their children to be recognized, included and protected, just as any family does.

Isn’t it fair for Canada to stand up and to stand together, to say that our most vulnerable children and teens deserve to be specifically protected for the very characteristic that makes them vulnerable? Do we as a nation not have the responsibility to enshrine gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act? It is imperative. The medical evidence supports it; and these young Canadians, slipping through the cracks of our society, deserve to have their tears of loneliness and rejection wiped away so that instead of living and dying in fear, they may grow up to share and contribute to this wonderful country in which we are so privileged to live… (still quoting)

David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board):

… The desperate attempt, I would say, by member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to amend the bill shows that the bill itself is not adequate. The bill is just not up to the level it needs to be in order for anyone to support it in this House. The amendments to the act as proposed by Bill C-279 are largely symbolic and vague, and I would say that they risk introducing confusion to the law. I would suggest as well that the amendments he is making do not add anything to it.

The bill is not properly designed to remedy the supposed social problem that it is aimed at addressing, and I would argue that it is largely unnecessary as well. For those reasons and a couple of others, I will be opposing Bill C-279.

… I understand that the member is now starting to try to put definition into some of these things because he is afraid he is going to lose the bill, and I think that he should lose it. Expanding the definition of sexual orientation to gender expression and to gender identity in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code makes who and what is being protected even less clear than it is. If the member’s purpose was to clarify the existing grounds, which I would maintain is unnecessary, he could have proposed adding an appropriate definition to the Canadian Human Rights Act. He did not do that. He has come back lately with an attempt to do that, but it was not his intention at the beginning.

… I would suggest that even with the definition he is trying to add today, he probably is still thinking that hopefully the courts and the human rights commissions will define it. However, I would argue that it is inadequate for a legislator to proceed in this way.

If our role is to bring laws forward, they should be brought forward with enough content that the courts and commissions are not the ones who are defining what those bills are and what they say. I believe that is inappropriate. It is an abdication of our parliamentary responsibility to pass laws that would leave us in a situation like that. For parliamentarians to leave new and undefined terms to the courts and human rights tribunals, I would argue, is risky and irresponsible.

I also want to point out—and I think this is probably something that the member hopes will happen—that when the courts rule on these grounds, they usually assume that the old language was inadequate and that they should make new and broader interpretations and that such broader interpretations must be sought…

Previous records or notes:

• Second Reading debate part one,
• Second Reading debate part two,
• JUST Committee opening discussion (Sara Davis Buechner, Hershel Russell, Egale Canada),
• JUST Committee roundup (R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal),
• JUST Committee discussion filibuster,
• Thoughts on amendments,
• Submission of amendments.

And if you’ve been paying close attention, you’ll have seen that when governments do put the pressure on nations like Uganda, often the situation for LGBT Africans becomes worse, with political leaders vowing to enact extreme punitive laws at the earliest opportunity, and the public hatred surging and escalating further.  This has caused LGBT people in Uganda to ask for concerned folks to avoid media and public admonitions, and avoid threats to cut aid, or to avoid tying aid to human rights.

The current approach has enabled anti-gay lobby groups to spin our concern into a perceived colonial will to impose homosexuality on Africa.  In reality, of course, it’s these neo-conservative groups who wish to import their homophobic version of morality on the Ugandan peoples, but when this becomes a pressure-on-nation scenario, it still gives the appearance of validity to claims of colonialism.  Uganda and several other African nations have long histories of suffering under the will of other nations, so this proves to be a powerful and effective point of deflection and deception.

But for those of us in North America who are concerned for LGBT people around the world, this creates a quandary.  We care for the safety and well-being of our sisters, brothers and everyone in between.  We want to do something.

It turns out that we can.  Although it’s best to leave the situation in Uganda and elsewhere to citizens of those nations, we can take the battle to western organizations that are exporting hate.  In the early days of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, we understood this, and challenged people like Rick Warren (successfully) to cut ties with anti-gay agitators, and exposed the full extent of the hateful agendas of others, like Scott Lively.  This, we can still do.  Rather than appearing to impose our will on Africa, we are combating the genuine attempts of neo-conservative groups to impose theirs.

Last week, I posted one such challenge, calling on LifeSiteNews to explain its extensive partnership with Human Life International, one of the groups identified in Colonizing African Values – How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa as being a key anti-gay lobby group in Africa (along with the American Center for Law and Justice, a part of Pat Robertson’s extensive ministries).  To that end, I ask that people sign onto the petition at Avaaz to push LSN for a reply.  I also ask that people encourage their friends to do the same.

This is not the only campaign of the sort that can be launched, of course.

This morning, Canadian publications are reporting that a Canadian group which listed homosexuality, lesbianism and “transvestitism” as “sexual sins” it considered to be “perversion” has been receiving funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for work in Uganda.  It is not yet known if Crossroads Christian Communications (a televangelist empire which grew out of the program 100 Huntley Street) has used any of the $544,813 in funding it has received for anti-gay lobbying or even if the group has taken a position on the bill at all — the grant was intended to dig latrines and promote hygiene.  But questions are being asked.  [This report follows on the heels of a January report in Quebec media that indicated CIDA funding of theological aid groups grew by 42% since the Harper Conservatives came to power in 2005, while non-religious groups working internationally saw their funding stagnate (details will be released in the spring edition of the Canadian Journal of Development Studies).]

And on Thursday, February 7th, President Obama spoke at the 61st annual National Prayer Breakfast, sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, a.k.a. “The Family,” another group involved in funding and supporting anti-gay hatred and lobbying.  GetEQUAL condemned the President’s attendance:

“We’d like to see the President stop coming to events that are sponsored by people who are trying to kill and imprison us,” said Cathy Kristofferson, co-lead organizer with GetEQUAL Massachusetts and active supporter of LGBT Ugandans. “We’re disappointed that the president is sending mixed messages to our youth and to our friends abroad, by giving supportive speeches one day and then supporting those who was to murder us four days later.”

Challenge the groups involved in anti-gay lobbying in Africa.  Challenge those who fund, support and cheer them on.  Challenge those who would lend their presence and prestige to these groups, even if some of them are our allies.  The connection to anti-gay lobbying in Africa needs to be called out, shamed, defunded and isolated.

This, we can do.

(The previous Open Letter to LSN and the petition.  Know of similar efforts?  Let me know!  Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)