Dented Blue Mercedes

Trans Human Rights Bill C-279 Committee Roundup: The Filibuster.

In the third meeting of the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to discuss Canada’s trans human rights Bill C-279, the clock ran out. When a bill is entered into Second Reading, it can either be forwarded on, or be given 60 days for clause-by-clause review and amendments. Thursday December 6th was the last possible day to review the bill.

There would have been a way to get a 30-day extension (given that 2 meetings devoted to C-279 were disrupted by Parliamentary votes), but ~~Republicans~~ Conservatives filibustered the motion, against procedure. By that, I mean that an hour-long debate over procedural issues ensued (including a 15-minute off-webcast time-out so tempers could subside), even though a motion for an extension is not supposed to be up for debate, and the meeting ended before the vote on that motion could happen.

Here are the relevant sections from Parliamentary procedure (emphasis mine):

The committee is obliged, within 60 sitting days from the date of reference, to report back a private Member’s public bill with or without amendment, to present a report recommending that the bill not be proceeded with further, or to request a one‑time extension of 30 sitting days to consider the bill. In the last two cases, reasons must be given. Should a committee fail to report back to the House as required, the bill is automatically deemed reported without amendment.

and

If a committee feels it will not be able to complete its consideration of a private Member’s public bill referred to it within 60 sitting days, it may request an extension of 30 further sitting days.[205] Only one extension may be sought. As soon as a committee report requesting an extension is presented, a motion to concur in the report is deemed to have been moved and seconded. No debate takes place, as the motion is deemed put to a vote right away and the vote is deferred until the next Wednesday sitting.[206] If the House agrees to grant the extension, then the committee has an extra 30 sitting days to complete its consideration of the bill.[207] When an extension is granted, it begins immediately after the expiry of the original 60 sitting day limit, rather than on the day the extension is granted. This means that the new deadline for reporting is 90 sitting days following the original referral of the bill to committee.[208] If the House refuses to grant the extension, but the original 60 sitting day deadline has yet to pass, the committee may continue to consider the bill until the 60th sitting day. If the extension is refused and the 60th sitting day has already passed, the bill is deemed reported without amendment and an order for its consideration at report stage is set down on the Order Paper.

So the committee fails to report back as required, and the bill proceeds on without the amendments.

If you’re curious about what would have happened, we didn’t hear all of the proposed amendments, but there were two that were accepted and ten others that were tossed out because they were superseded by the two already voted. There was at least one other not yet considered, and an NDP amendment which was being withdrawn when the motion to request an extension was made. The ones that had been accepted by the committee were:

NDP1 removed gender expression (plus adds some other unrelated classes which have already been added to human rights legislation since the bill was first written), and
NDP2 established a definition for gender identity. That definition is from the Yogyakarta Principles:

“Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.”

What was quoted in the meeting was just “Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth,” so might even be shorter than what was above.

But as I said, given the way the meeting ended, it is very possible that the bill will return without these amendments, for a vote. Some of the Conservatives whose support Randall Garrison is counted on was depended on these two amendments. Which was obviously the intention.

The webcast for Meeting 55 is online, if you want to hear a couple of the members suddenly forget committee procedure and at one point even try to remember it by referring to the procedures of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. It’s a good lesson in confound, confuse and confusticate tactics. There is also a moment that perhaps hints at opponents’ next strategy (if you can get through the extra verbage used to turn a single sentence into three run-on paragraphs):

Mr. Brent Rathgeber: Speaking to the amendment, I understand, in response to Ms. Boivin’s query, that with respect to Bill C-273, this committee never had any opportunity to vet it clause by clause. In that situation I think it was automatic, or certainly more appropriate, that the committee vote and the House concur with the committee that there be an extension of time, because the committee had no opportunity to do clause-by-clause consideration of that important amendment to the Criminal Code.

We have a different situation here. We have a situation where the committee has met. Perhaps not as many minutes and hours have been dedicated to the clause-by-clause consideration as some would like, and certainly not enough to get through the bill, it would appear. However, that may be indicative of a problem: that is, this committee is going to be unable to adequately deal with what are certainly some controversial issues and some unclear definitions with respect to this bill.

Although this is not really speaking to the amendment, but more to the motion, I think we’re almost in a situation of—in law—a hung jury, where the committee has perhaps reached a point where it’s having difficulty proceeding in a particular meaningful way. As a result, although I know I’m still speaking to the amendment, which I still think is based on a factually incorrect statement, I will be voting against the motion, because I think these are issues that only the House will be able to deal with.

Stay tuned, and expect Mr. Rathgeber to be the point man for opposition next time, trying to represent the Committee’s position as being that the bill is too complex and controversial, and therefore not viable.

———————–

Update: A report in Postmedia papers now suggests that the two amendments could in fact return:

It will be up to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to decide whether he’d allow the same amendments passed at committee — but never reported back — to be raised again and debated in the Commons.

“It’s clear that both sides feel the bill can be improved,” said Liberal MP Sean Casey. “Why we would send it back to the House without having a chance to discuss those amendments is frankly beyond me.”

Does this madness ever end?

I’ll try to find out more about this.

2012: 12/12
CATEGORY: Canadian Politics
Gender Diversity
Trans
Transsexual
Leave a comment

C-279 Committee Roundup: The Necessity of Inclusion

On Tuesday November 27th, the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights (JUST) met for a second of three meetings to examine the trans human rights bill, C-279. I’ll be discussing the filibuster that occurred in the third, shortly. However, it’s worth paying attention to the discussion on the bill’s necessity in the second meeting, as it was one of the Conservatives’ key arguments for opposing the bill.

In the first hour, it heard from representatives from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), and a representative from R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Diane Watts. Which, if you were listening to the webcast, was something like listening to Peter Mansbridge, Pamela Wallin, and then this person:

Watts made news because rather than speaking much about trans people and human rights issues, she mostly ranted at length about pedophiles. Then, when she was cut off and told her remarks were offensive, the floor was turned over to a member of the committee, Robert Goguen, who bade her to continue in the same vein for another five minutes.

A lot was said about Watts testimony, although the coverage glossed over some things. R.E.A.L.’s “lead researcher” tried to frighten the committee about inclusion leading to the correctional system having “to provide treatment for those inmates,” even though Canada already has a ruling on that in Kavanaugh v. Canada (2001). Committee members referred to it several times in that meeting, in fact. Watts also cited the American College of Pediatricians, which is an organization founded by reparative therapists and has been repudiated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the actual recognized authority in ACP’s field.

But the overlooked testimony of the CHRC and CHRT representatives is far more significant.

The Conservative Party argument against Bill C-279 has long been that they believed the bill was not necessary, and that the terms were not defined. And yet, after the second meeting of the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to discuss the bill, some of the opponents of trans human rights inclusion switched tactics by dropping the argument about necessity, and focused emphatically on defining the terms narrowly, such as by tying them to a diagnosis. The use of the “not necessary” argument came to an end. So what happened during the meeting?

The anti-gay spin machine LifeSiteNews has deliberately distorted the testimony of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal folks in order to validate the idea that clear human rights inclusion is unnecessary. But it only works if you cherry-pick little snippets from Canadian Human Rights Commission acting secretary general, Ian Fine, and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acting chairperson and chief executive officer, Susheel Gupta, out of context:

Fine, responding to Goguen, admitted that “strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary…”

Gupta was more adamant about not taking a position either way, but here are full quotes from Ian Fine from the transcript. See if you come to the same conclusion that LSN did:

“To answer your question, as I said at the outset, we currently accept complaints—and have forever—from transgendered individuals under the ground of sex, and sometimes under the ground of disability, and we will continue to do so. To answer your question, strictly speaking, I suppose the legislation isn’t necessary, but we see other reasons why it would be important to include these two grounds under our act, and we do support them.

“For one thing, it would provide the clarity that I think we believe is missing at this point, because as much as it’s true that the commission and tribunals and courts do accept transgender issues as falling under the ground of sex, parties still debate that issue before those very tribunals and courts and question whether or not transgender issues fall under sex. In one case I know of, an issue was raised as to whether or not you could even raise the issue under sex and instead should raise it under disability.

“There continue to be these debates, so for clarity reasons, we believe it would be a good thing to add these two grounds. Also, as I said at the outset, it would be a recognition of the discrimination that this group faces: the sometimes hostile and violent acts that this group faces in our society. So it would recognize the vulnerability of this group, of these individuals.

“…

“It is true that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal certainly has held that these matters fall within the existing prohibited grounds. There’s no doubt about that. Other courts and tribunals across the land have done so. As I have said, we receive complaints on transgender issues under the ground of sex and sometimes disability.

“But the reality is that even though the courts have accepted that and we accept that, parties still go before those tribunals and courts and raise arguments about whether or not they are included. So clearly there are some Canadians who aren’t in agreement with that notion, who are still fighting about it, who feel that the protection is not explicit or shouldn’t be covered by one of the other grounds.

“We’re simply suggesting to add these grounds to provide more clarity to all Canadians, to make it explicit, and then there’s no doubt.”

Spin attempts to the contrary, Conservatives can’t justifiably call clear trans human rights inclusion unnecessary, anymore.

2012: 12/12
CATEGORY: Canadian Politics
Dissecting Spin
Gender Diversity
Trans
Transsexual
Leave a comment

About that “GID is removed from the DSM” thing…

Oh god, please make it stop.

Yesterday morning, I woke up to a rash of headlines proclaiming that transexuality was no longer considered “disordered” by the American Psychiatric Association. This morning, it grew worse, with a rash of panicked emails from people who were wondering if their medical access would be jeopardized, after some LGBT and even mainstream news sites and blogs reported this as meaning that “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) will no longer be considered in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), or had been “removed” from the DSM altogether. No, it hasn’t. That’s not true at all.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but the change that’s being heralded is mostly just in name, and “Gender Dysphoria” remains in the DSM — and in the “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders” category (although that name may change too), if I recall correctly, of a manual that governs mental health. The parallel being drawn to when homosexuality was removed from the DSM wildly overstates this change.

And because it has not been completely removed (something I’ve previously cautioned about the risk of doing too hastily, regarding both the DSM and ICD volumes), peoples’ medical processes are not affected in any way. The panic I’ve heard from some people wondering if their medical treatment will be hindered is unfounded.

There is something to see here, though:

There is a positive in this, though, in that people are finally paying attention to the problems associated with another DSM category: Transvestic Disorder (formerly Transvestic Fetish). When the alarm was raised about Drs. Ray Blanchard and Ken Zucker having administrative roles in the DSM revision, that protest lost some steam when the APA announced that Zucker would be in an oversight position rather than hands-on, and Blanchard would be working on a separate category not related to GID (Paraphilias). Some of our allies decided we were making much ado about nothing. Now, people are perhaps realizing the problem with that arrangement, in that it gave Blanchard full license to develop Transvestic Disorder (TD / TF).

A few trans advocates (including Kelley Winters, Julia Serano, and myself) have cautioned about the problems with regard to TD / TF and what could happen if that diagnosis is expanded in scope while GID diminishes or is eliminated. Well, indications thus far are that Transvestic Disorder has certainly been expanded, and evolved to encompass Ray Blanchard’s theory of “autogynephilia” as a subcategory (plus the addition of “autoandrophilia,” to make it an equal-opportunity pathology). All that anyone really needs to do to technically qualify for this diagnosis, as Serano notes, is to be “sexually active while wearing clothing incongruent with their birth-assigned sex.”

This diagnosis sexualizes and invalidates, and frankly, it has become a wide, sweeping pathology encompassing a significant amount of non-harmful behaviour.

Backgrounder: The Little Case Study That Autogynephilia Forgot

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

2012: 12/05
CATEGORY: Gender Diversity
Medical
Sex Positivity
Trans
Transsexual
3 comments

Guest Post: Teacher plays scene from Disney Movie to Humiliate Student in Class

[This post comes to us courtesy of Michelle Boyce at the Alphabet Community Centre. -M]

Anna Saunders is a mature student who attended a summer school class at Saunders Secondary School and a teacher decided she was a “guy in a dress”, beginning to use male pronouns and “Sir” when addressing her. The students picked up on the teacher’s behaviour and started harassing Anna during class and following her after school. Anna was left vulnerable and scared. After school officials spoke to the teacher twice about his behaviour, the teacher decided to play the scene from the movie Madagascar for the class where King Julien jumps from the cake and screams, “I am a woman, look at me freaks, I know you are attracted to me”. Anna was devastated, felt threatened and the school board had no disciplinary action towards the teacher, nor did they provide any training on the issue. This was a horrible blatant attack on a student in his class!

Gender issues are a prevalent issue in Thames Valley Schools with students being bullied at atrocious rates when they don’t conform to a stereotypical male or female presentation. 7.1% or approximately 4,900 students didn’t identify as Male or Female on the 2011 Secondary Safe Schools Survey conducted by the TVDSB. Whereas Toronto District School Board just released a policy on Gender Non-conforming students and staff, Barb Sonier, Superintendent of the London Board says by email, “We are continuing to work through the development of the guidelines (which will be very similar to the TDSB guidelines) and endeavour to complete the first draft early in the new year.” No one specializing in Gender Non-conforming youth are being consulted on this policy development.

Michelle Boyce, who operates Trans Youth London which is a joint project of Alphabet Community Centre and the London Public Library, providing a safe space for Trans Youth in the City of London, says that bullying and violence by staff and students is a regular daily routine for Gender Non-conforming kids. Thursday Ms. Boyce was in a Saunders classroom where the teacher completely miss-gendered the student. When confronted the teacher said, “Oh I do it all the time, I’ve talked to the student about it”, with no regard to the harm she was causing. The student missed the next day of school in distress.

Kaylie Sorrenti went through school diagnosed with ADHD, Learning disability, and in grade 9 had a guidance counselor tell her that it was good she wouldn’t complete high school, the world needs more student labour. None of those diagnoses were accurate. Now Kaylie has transitioned from male to female and is a straight ‘A’ student, looking forward to University. But the staff still bully her, and the distress continues. At the height of it all she attempted suicide twice and spent months in a psychiatric hospital, where they couldn’t find anything wrong with her. They blamed the victim; Kaylie needed to get tougher and more able to deal with the bullies. Every one of Kaylie’s teachers at Saunders have bullied her in the past two weeks, violating the Human Rights Code. Kaylie is working hard at getting her education, she is already 2 years behind her peers and the systemic harassment and discrimination keeps tearing her apart.

Jamie Connoly is the head of Laurier’s GSA. A leader in his school and in grade 12. The school refused to put his male name on his student records, so for the past 2 years his report cards, class lists, and all school material were using the incorrect name. A direct violation of the Human Rights Code. Jamie writes, “On Thursday April 26th, 2012 I encountered a very uncomfortable and embarrassing situation. To start off, I will mention that it was the day midterm report cards were to be handed out to all the students. For the average student, this would not be an issue in any possible way (other than finding out their mark is lower than they wish it to be). For me, it’s a little more complicated, especially when there is a substitute teacher that doesn’t really know any of the students too well. I am a transgender female to male student. I have not had my name legally changed and therefore on the reports, it still says my birth name. When it came to the horrifying moment that the substitute teacher called for my birth name, it really created an unsafe feeling for myself.”

Despite repetitive offers to help train teachers and administration on this issue, for free, the London Board of Education has refused assistance on this matter. Students in most schools that gender non-conforming are forced to use staff washrooms or handicapped single stall washrooms regardless of how inconvenient their locations are for the student.

The Director of Education’s anti-bullying taskforce doesn’t contain any experts on LGBT youth and are seen by the community as NOT having a priority within the Thames Valley District School Board’s schools. The London School Board currently has no policy in place regarding Trans Youth in our schools and it is left up to individual principal’s to deal with each situation as it occurs. Without training and support the administration has completely left its employees out in sea without a paddle. Staff don’t understand the issues and repetitively put students in harm’s way as a result.

In EGALE’s school climate study they found:
74% of trans students;
55% of sexual minority students;
26% of non-LGBTQ students;
Reported having been verbally harassed about their gender expression.

37% of trans students;
21% of sexual minority students;
10% of non-LGBTQ students;
Reported being physically harassed or assaulted because of their gender expression.

Source: www.mygsa.ca

Trans PULSE is an Ontario survey conducted on Trans populations. Trans PULSE found, “Our results point strongly to the special vulnerabilities experienced by trans youth. Trans youth were nearly twice as likely to seriously consider suicide as those overage 25 , and almost three times as likely to have attempted suicide within the past year”. www.transpulseproject.ca

Immediate attention needs to be targeted to this vulnerable group of youth. The Thames Valley School Board needs to act quickly before more youth die. The London Board of Education MUST provide education in schools, put out fact sheets and finalize policy addressing these issues immediately.

Currently there are 6 applicants filing Human Rights cases against the TVDSB, the offending teachers and administration. We expect many more students past and present to sign on to the complaint as it develops. Gender Identity and Gender Expression were added as grounds to the Ontario Human Rights Code recently although Trans Youth have been protected under the ground of Sex previously.

Michelle Boyce
Executive Director Alphabet Community Centre
Facilitator Trans Youth London
www.acclondon.ca

Kaylie Sorrenti
Saunders Student

Anna Saunders
Mohawk College

Jamie Connoly
Laurier Student

[Phone numbers withheld from public posting.]

2012: 12/04
CATEGORY: Gender Diversity
Trans
Transsexual
Youth
1 comment

Trans Human Rights in Canada: Progress, Stalls and Confustication.

The Province of Nova Scotia passed Bill 140, the Transgendered [sic] Persons Protection Act, today. The Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project (NSRAP) commented on Facebook:

“Bill 140 passed today with unanimous support in the Nova Scotia Legislature. “Debate” isn’t the right word to express what happened – it was an outpouring of support for adding gender identity and gender expression to the Human Rights Act.”

Meanwhile, things haven’t gone as well in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Jennifer McCreath reports that:

For the third year in a row, members of the Newfoundland NDP party asked the governing Conservatives to add Gender Identity and Gender Expression to the Human Rights Code. This year, not only did they ask via Question Period, but did so via signed petition – that contained over 400 signatures of NL citizens. In addition, a speech was read to commemorate transgender day of remembrance – which included a thank you to the various organizations working on behalf of trans rights in NL.

And for the federal trans human rights bill, C-279, it’s looking like it might be at risk of becoming mired in committee stage by a triple threat of “confound, confuse and confusticate.” The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) will be hearing 8 proposed amendments to the bill, and so far we’ve only seen the first, which proposes to drop the term “gender expression” from the bill and also to correct a technicality by adding in some classes which have already been added to the Canada Human Rights Act since the bill was first drawn up. Some on the committee are questioning the move to drop gender expression, with a couple instead calling for it to be narrowly defined. Stay tuned. The committee meets again on Tuesday December 4th at 3:30 EST / 1:30 MST, and there is a webcast (Meeting 55) that can be listened to live on Parliament’s website when it happens.

Nova Scotia is the fourth region in Canada to pass trans-inclusive protections. The NorthWest Territories added gender identity to human rights legislation in 2002, and the Provinces of Ontario and Manitoba both added gender identity and gender expression to theirs in 2012. Similar proposals have been put forward in other provinces, but have met resistance. Alberta Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman, for example, proposed an amendment which would have added gender identity to that province’s update of human rights legislation in 2009, but the Progressive Conservative majority voted it down. The cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa have also passed non-discrimination ordinances.

Nova Scotia: Progress

From the Hansard (transcript) of today’s Legislative session notes that the Nova Scotian Minister of Justice Ross Landry introduced the bill for Third Reading, and MLAs Michel Samson, Jim Morton, Kelly Regan, Gary Burrill and Gary Ramey all spoke compellingly in favour of the bill. Here are some highlights:

Hon. Ross Landry: “I hope that this bill is the beginning of a new era for our province; one in which transgender Nova Scotians don’t have to worry about threats, fears, or discrimination; one in which they know their community will accept them without question, and one where they know all Nova Scotians support them in their desire to live full, happy and healthy lives.”

Mr. Jim Morton: “There are reasons why people are invisible and stay that way. Sometimes staying invisible is about not being able to find the language to share, but I think more often it’s the risk of ridicule, the risk of physical harm – actual harm, not just emotional harm, but harm to one’s physical being – and the risk of being isolated, but in a new and yet more painful way. All of those risks help people stay silent.

“One of the consequences of that experience, and one of the reasons why I think Bill No. 140, although it’s only a few words, is so important is shame. One of the consequences of keeping the core of oneself private involves a sense of shame, and that shame, in turn, reinforces the invisibility. And I think shame robs individuals of their potential; shame steals capacity from communities and can give rise to thoughts of self-harm or anger, or certainly it can contribute, in the mental health world, to depression.

“… So Bill No. 140, the Transgendered Persons Protection Act, is an acknowledgement that transgendered persons exist, that they have a right to exist and to be part of our society, to live openly and to live, as the Minister of Justice said in his remarks, without fear, but not only without fear, but can and must be welcomed as part of our larger community.”

Mr. Gary Burrill: “What progress, we might just think to reflect for a moment, what advances there have been, just over the course of the last few decades. A person thinks about this naturally in terms of contrasts. I think about the world, for example, which I inhabited as a child and my memories of the inhuman ridicule in the community where I was raised, to which a person who was identified there as transgendered, was exposed. I think of the claustrophobic homophobia which prevailed in the closed gender and sexual expression environment of the high school that I attended. I contrast this with the much more open high school world in my own experience of Musquodoboit Rural High School – the high school world from which my own children, in the last decade, have graduated. This high school, which has its vibrant chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance and defying in the process, I might say, a lot of stereotypes about rural communities with its vibrant chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance…”

Newfoundland: Stalls

In Newfoundland, the story has been much the opposite, with NDP MLA Gerry Rogers reading a petition on behalf of 400 signatories, calling upon that government to add human rights protections for trans people, on November 20th, to coincide with the Transgender Day of Remembrance. The Minister of Justice for Newfoundland, Darin King, responded with the same claim that federal Conservatives have made, that inclusion was unnecessary (something that representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal effectively refuted, but more on that later). King said (as he often has) that “we are advised, through our legal advisors and through the Human Rights Commission, that there are no gaps in the current legislation and that provisions that the member is asking for are currently there.”

Ms. Rogers also questioned the Minister of Health, Susan Sullivan, about the province’s requirement that trans people travel to Toronto’s Centre for Addictions and Mental Health for diagnosis and recommendation for surgery, when there are skilled medical professionals in Newfoundland who are capable and willing to address trans health. Sullivan responded that her department was “willing to sit and talk and have conversations around those issues,” so the news might not be all bad (time will tell).

Jennifer McCreath has been following this effort closely.

The uncertain future of Bill C-279

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) has had two meetings so far to discuss Bill C-279, Randall Garrison’s Private Member’s Bill proposing to add transsexual and transgender people to federal human rights legislation and to protected classes in hate crimes laws. Meeting one was predominantly testimony. Sara Davis Buechner and Hershel Russell spoke of their experiences, followed by representatives from Egale Canada, Ryan Dyck and Erin Apsit. Highlights of this meeting include:

Sara Davis Buechner: “After graduating from the Juilliard School in 1984, I gave a very successful debut in New York. In 1986 I was the top American prize winner of the international Tchaikovsky competition in Moscow. I received a lovely letter from President Ronald Reagan at that time. Some years later, I also played at the White House for President and Mrs. Clinton. I have a very nice photo of the two of them congratulating me on that.

“At the age of 37, after a lifetime of questioning and fear, I was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and I transitioned to my correct gender, which is female. My pianistic skills did not change one bit, but suddenly my concert schedule went from about 50 appearances per year to two or three, and the conservatory in New York where I was a popular teacher decided my skills were no longer needed.

“With limited means of supporting myself, I took a job teaching small children at an upstate private school for about $600 a month. I counted myself lucky, as most of the transgender friends I knew were completely unemployed. Some of them were homeless.

“I learned to endure frequent verbal and occasional physical harassment as part of the price of that integrity, even in a city of such a cosmopolitan nature. One evening I was the victim of an attempted date rape at the hands of a man who assumed, since I was transgendered, I must be a sex worker. I didn’t bother to report that to the police, because I didn’t want to be harassed by them either. I believe they would have assumed I was a trannie sex worker and deserved everything I got.

“In an effort to find meaningful employment, I applied to about 30 American colleges and universities with music openings. I received no answer from most of them, and rejections from the others. One professor from Rutgers university asked a colleague of mine if it was safe to leave me alone in a room with undergraduates.

“But when I was called for an interview for the open piano position at UBC in Vancouver, I was pleasingly astonished to find that their music department was interested about two things only: one, my musical ability; and two, my teaching ability.

“When I did get the job in a competitive audition, I was overcome by emotion on two levels. One, I would be able to pay my bills for the first time in many years. And two, I realized that Canada was far ahead in terms of its understanding and support of basic human rights…”

Hershel Russell: “Some of the information I would really like you to grasp in terms of this bill is that both studies show very clearly that we are an exceptionally highly educated community. We have more education than almost any other community, and we are a community that suffers from extraordinary poverty. I would like to argue that this combination of things can only be explained by discrimination. There really isn’t another way to explain it. Both of these documents also really show the terrifying, heartbreaking levels of suicidality in our community, and certainly, as a mental health professional, I have to work with these painful, painful issues over and over and over…”

(later): “… The shortage of doctors for all Ontarians is bad; the shortage of doctors who have any idea how to work with our community is horrifying. There are very few weeks in which I don’t have a client for whom I am desperately seeking medical care.

“We’re working very hard to expand the numbers of doctors who have the knowledge and the connections, in terms of protocols and so on, to undertake that care—we are not very complicated, we are much easier to care for than folks with diabetes—but that is proceeding slowly. It is very, very hard for us to access the most basic health care.

“It is also true, as my colleague Sara was saying, that a trip to the emergency room can be pretty alarming. There is no reason to assume even that you’re going to be treated respectfully. We still have far too many stories of people going in for a flu shot and somehow it’s necessary to have their genitals examined….”

Ryan Dyck (Egale Canada): “My understanding, from speaking with our lawyers and given the way the Canadian system works, is that the phrase “gender identity” would be interpreted by the courts to include the expression of that identity. That would be in line with the Supreme Court’s repeated statement that “a broad, liberal and purposive approach is appropriate” when interpreting human rights legislation. From that perspective, I suspect that we would be on good legal grounds with just “gender identity”.

“However, I would be concerned that it does create some ambiguity, given that this leaves it up to the courts and we cannot guarantee that such would be the case. I would also be concerned as to what signal it would send if the committee were to remove it. In future cases, if the courts were to look at that as a signal that gender identity shouldn’t be included, or if were not Parliament’s intent, that would create a large concern for me.”

Hershel Russell: “To have identity documents that don’t match is a real problem for us. It means we can go through the kind of experiences I went through. We can have all kinds of difficulties with the police. It’s a constant source of anxiety and difficulty for us. It’s really big.”

The Evidence (transcript) of Meeting 2 hasn’t been posted yet. When it has, I’ll likely discuss that further. However, a quick synopsis is that the Committee heard from representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), as well as from a last minute addition to the agenda, Diane Watts, a researcher for R.E.A.L. Women of Canada. Ms. Watt went on at length about pedophiles, obviously conflating trans people with predators, and turned the first hour into a bit of a circus. But there was also some important testimony from the CHRC and CHRT representatives that dismantled the argument that explicit inclusion is “unnecessary.” Although there was a mix of statements on that subject, there seemed to be more or less agreement that visibly codifying trans people in human rights legislation would be not only helpful for the public at large, but for the legal system as well. After that, there was some initial discussion of the first of 8 proposed amendments to the bill, none of which have been voted on or decided on, yet.

Stay tuned.

2012: 12/01
CATEGORY: Canadian Politics
Gender Diversity
Social Justice
Trans
Transsexual
4 comments

Dear anonymous guest.

Hi.

On Sunday November 18th, 2012, you attended the Transgender Day of Remembrance ceremony commemorated in Calgary, Alberta. Thank you.

You also left a small tribute. I wanted to let you know that we’ll make it a permanent part of our display for you. It’s a small thing, but hopefully it will help let everyone know (as I suspect you wanted) that Gracie Detzer was not just a name on a list, but someone who is remembered and cherished.

Ours is a grassroots effort and we try to do that, but we don’t always succeed. Oftentimes, things just get too emotionally overwhelming to be able to do everyone justice.

I lived in Edmonton when she was strangled and drowned in a bathtub. I was still struggling with my own issues at that time, so I didn’t follow what happened well enough. More importantly, I didn’t have the privilege of knowing her as a person, rather than simply someone who was trans. I don’t even know for certain how she preferred to be referred.

And our community has been pretty transient over the years, so a lot of that knowledge and familiarity gets lost and forgotten. This is not a good thing.

We’ve grown as a community, though. And we’d love to better preserve her memory, if you’re wanting to do so. Let me know if you’d like to talk about her, and if you’d like to discuss doing something more enduring in her memory.

2012: 11/21
CATEGORY: Gender Diversity
Trans
Transsexual
Leave a comment

LGBT human rights in Uganda, and John Baird’s dilemma.

Recent attention from both ends of the political spectrum has focused on the efforts of the Harper government to safeguard the safety and human rights of lesbian and gay people around the world. I’ve commended Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird for taking the lead on this before, and without prompting. But what has been getting missed in media thus far are the underlying circumstances which make this a particularly difficult Gordian knot of diplomacy. The more we learn about political movements in Uganda, the more we realize that if we are forceful, we may actually be causing harm to that nation’s LGBT people.

Box Turtle Bulletin (which has provided extensive and in-depth coverage of Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill and other similar happenings in Africa) is noting that Uganda’s Parliamentary Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, was received with a welcome rally upon her return to Uganda, following a conflict with Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Quebec City on October 25th. Kadaga is reportedly vowing to do entirely the opposite of what Baird had urged, by pushing to resurrect the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill — which has had specific mention of the death sentence for “serial homosexuality” (among other things) removed, but replaced with a reference to the same penalty from an unrelated law. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill would also heavily criminalize several peripheral things like advocating on behalf of LGBT people, or attending a same-sex wedding. Uganda’s Daily Monitor is further claiming that Baird had demonised Uganda, unprovoked.

This isn’t the first time that Uganda has responded in this way, and mirrors similar responses from other African nations like Nigeria toward pressures to safeguard the human rights of LGBT people. Kadaga and other Ugandan legislators have also responded to U.S. and U.K. attempts by redoubling their determination to criminalize, and by increasing the severity of punishment.

Part of this arises because of an increased sensitivity to other nations imposing their will on Africa, something that has taken place overtly and covertly throughout Africa’s entire remembered history. Uganda in particular has only been independent from Britain since 1962.

This sensitivity to colonial tactics has been exploited by right-wing western organizations, which have taken to portraying affirmation and assistance efforts for LGBT people as attempts to impose homosexuality on them. Ironically, those organizations are trying to encourage the development of a Western-style theocratic worldview in these nations, and succeeding to an extent. In Political Research Associates’ report entitled Colonizing African Values – How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa, researchers noted:

“Homophobia proved a powerful rallying point for many established leaders on the continent. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the late Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi, and former Zambian President Rupiah Banda all derided their opponents as in bed with the homosexual agenda when their leaderships were threatened. These leaders found they could earn easy support from religious factions, while winning nationalist votes for denouncing the West as neocolonial.

Africans working for U.S. rightist groups also lodge the charge. Human Life International’s regional coordinator Emil Hagamu praised the Ugandan parliament as “typically African” for promoting the “Kill the Gays” bill. “It strives to protect African traditional and cultural values against Western encroachment in areas such as homosexuality and same-sex unions. Uganda is the center of attraction for population control bigots.”“

(“Population control” is HLI’s phrase for decrying the science on overpopulation, which it views in the same way that the U.S. far right sees climate change science and evolution. It is through this that the organization spins contraceptive initiatives to look like Western nations are imposing abortion and a kind of genocide on Africa, something that they’ve had less success at for the moment. This illustrates that it is not only LGBT human rights at risk in the current climate, although their situation is most dire. As an example, Melinda Gates’ contraception-inclusive womens’ health initiative was also recently targeted with the accusation of colonialism, even from the left. She didn’t help her case by appearing to ignore calls to invite local activists to be a part of the decision-making process.)

Diplomacy is a loaded game, and one nation cannot (should not) impose its worldview upon another. We can’t sit aside while genocides happen either, though, so it takes a complex approach to try to address the latter without committing the former. And unfortunately, there are self-interested parties — including other Western ones — that will exploit any attempt at assistance as evidence of meddling, in order to deflect from or even fuel their own political games. And given that HIV assistance is a primary objective of many relief efforts, there can certainly be a potential financial benefit for exploitative parties to do so.

What needs to be done is complex, but includes networking with and empowering women and LGBT people in those nations, so that they can lead their own activism within the cultural context that westerners often clumsily don’t understand enough. The reason that the accusations of colonialism and attempting to dictate resonates with the African peoples is that in the past, that is very much what governments have attempted to do. It’s best countered by supporting and empowering communities to lead for themselves.

And at the same time, Baird needs to balance all of this with the passion of Canadians, who are looking at the increasing violence and heavy-handed legislation against LGBT people in Uganda and Nigeria, and insisting that we need to do something. It’s a tall order, and as Baird moves forward, the challenge won’t be easy.

NOTE: As I was finishing this, the following letter was sent to Melanie Nathan at O-blog-dee-o-blog-da, which further emphasizes the need for a measured, non-sensational approach to Uganda. I agree with her that “we owe it to the local groups in Uganda to respect their direction.”

The letter is from a Coalition of LGBT Civil Societies in Uganda. Understandably, they did not want their names disclosed, but I trust the source, and the content is consistent with what has been happening in that nation. And at any rate, consulting with the people most at risk is always the best policy:

Released November 13, 2012 at 8:22am ·

Dear Partners, friends and colleagues,

We thank you for all the support you have a accorded the Coalition since the tabling of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2009, and we look forward to your continued collaboration in the struggle to see this bill dismissed once and for all.

In response to the recent claims made by the Hon Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament that she would see the Anti-Homosexuality Bill passed before this year comes to a close, we urge you to adhere to the following Action Alert Guidelines and to always seek clarification where there is a difference of opinion on tactics or where there is confusion or need for further information.

We encourage you to:

1. Urgently engage with the leadership of the nation (the President, the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, The Speaker, the Minister for Gender Labor and Social Development, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and any other Cabinet Ministers that you can engage with, the Inspector General of Police and the Principal Judge) to impress upon them the needlessness and imminent harm of this bill. This must however been done diplomatically and off the media. There should not be any media/public admonitions PLEASE!

2. Engage with any non-LGBTI partner organizations in Uganda that you may collaborate with or whom you fund to establish what their thinking is on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, as well as their thinking on other related legislative moves such as the proposal to amend the Penal Code in line with the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. We would strongly encourage other mainstream Ugandan organizations such as human rights NGOs and entities like the Uganda Law Society to speak out strongly against the impartiality of the speaker as well as this draconian bill. 3. Draw international public attention to issues such as corruption (tagging it to the recent corruption cases in the Ministry of Public Service and the Office of the Prime Minister), human trafficking, nodding disease in northern, land-grabbing, as well as the suppression of media freedom and civil society space, so that attention shifts to where it properly belongs; in the best interests of the country’s population as a whole. 4. Go ahead with any preparations of statements, campaigns, and other public documents for when the bill appears on the Order Paper of Parliament (you will be alerted when this happens) as well as for a worst-case scenario in which the Bill is passed into law. 5. Contribute physical, financial, or technical support to the LGBTI community as well as the exposed Human Rights Defenders working with LGBTI rights who are likely to begin to be arrested and charged almost as soon as the Bill is passed. The entire leadership of the Uganda Coalition has decided that any such assistance shall be channeled through a central point at the CSCHRCL secretariat from where it shall be communally managed. 6. Engage with your policy makers to take stronger measures to ensure that LGBTI issues are mainstreamed into calls for proposals, grant agreements, project design, implementation and evaluation as part of a long term strategy to establish LGBTI friendly services and programmes for all Ugandans as an inclusive practice.

We urge that you do NOT:

1. DO NOT Put out any public press statements on the Bill for now. But you can express your opinion if asked about the Bill. However this opinion must be candid and practical without being ‘insulting’. 2. DO NOT Make strong public statements threatening to cut aid or in support of such threats in response to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, as this can lead to scape-goating of the LGBTI community as well as Human Rights Defenders working with LGBTI rights and whip up sentiments for the Bill. Please note; We would like Ugandans to take charge of this campaign for now. Only if the Bill is mentioned/programmed in the Business of Parliament or passed into law shall we encourage a fully-fledged international outcry which can come in all forms such as; Public statements (written or spoken), public letters, solidarity campaigns, peaceful protests, interviews, opinion pieces et cetera.

(Crossposted to Rabble.ca and The Bilerico Project )

2012: 11/15
CATEGORY: LGBT
Social Justice
Canadian Politics
International
1 comment

DBM is collection of theory, politics and advocacy for trans, LGBT, sex and gender minorities, and their place in a decolonial world. From Alberta-based writer Mercedes Allen and guests.

Trans Human Rights Bill C-279 Committee Roundup: The Filibuster.

C-279 Committee Roundup: The Necessity of Inclusion

About that “GID is removed from the DSM” thing…

Guest Post: Teacher plays scene from Disney Movie to Humiliate Student in Class

Dear anonymous guest.

Mercedes Allen

Email Subscription

Featured Posts

Blogroll

Mercedes on Twitter

Follow my RSS feeds

Push LSN to respond to questions about its association with groups lobbying for anti-gay legislation in Africa

Slap Reparative Therapy

Recent Comments

Tags

Blog Stats

The Microaggressions Project

Follow “Dented Blue Mercedes”