Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Canuck Law Now Certified In Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Training (Not Satire)

(Getting into gay marriage)

(men, women, and non-binary….)

(Every identity group imaginable)

(Yes, forestry is sexist, just like construction)

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, to take GBA+ course.
CLICK HERE, for UN link to “gender inclusive language”.
CLICK HERE, for previous “peoplekind” review.

CLICK HERE, for the UN page on gender equality.
CLICK HERE, for women’s human rights.
CLICK HERE, for about UN women.
CLICK HERE, for goal #5 of sustainable development.
CLICK HERE, for guiding principles of UN women’s advisory, civil society groups.
CLICK HERE, for the Commission on the Status of Women.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s GBA+ (Gender Based Analysis Plus)
CLICK HERE, for declaration of women’s rights.
CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Beijing Declaration for Women.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 system-strategy for gender parity.
CLICK HERE, for gender-inclusive language
CLICK HERE, for guidelines for gender inclusive language.
CLICK HERE, for tools & training for gender inclusive language.

2. About The Course

This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. You will learn to define the key concepts of GBA+ and recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives. You will learn to identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives while applying some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes.

3. What Is GBA+ About?

Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) is an analytical process used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus” in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA+ goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences. We all have multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are; GBA+ also considers many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.

To state the glaringly obvious: this “course” embraces intersectionality, oppression complexes, and identity politics.

Once you have completed this course, you will be able to:
-Define the key concepts of GBA+
-Recognize how various identity factors can influence the experience of federal government initiatives
-Identify how GBA+ can enhance the responsiveness, effectiveness and outcomes of federal government initiatives
-Apply some foundational GBA+ concepts and processes

Whatever happened to treating everyone equally?

This course is designed as a basic introduction to GBA+. Depending on previous experience, you may find the content familiar while others find it new and challenging. Also, depending on your job, you may be required to take additional training in GBA+.

Kill me now.

Regardless of your experience, education and current situation, this is your place to begin. The course includes video, graphic and written material for your review, as well as exercises to test your knowledge. Character profiles and case studies will assist you in applying some basic GBA+ concepts and processes. Take as much time as you require, and keep in mind that you can come back to the course as many times as you like.

Doesn’t seem too difficult….

You will need to score 80% or higher on this quiz to receive a certificate of completion. If you require a fourth attempt to pass the final quiz, you will be redirected to the beginning of the course.

Where’s the cyanide when you need it?

Now that you have gathered some information about the forest sector, it is time to seek out stakeholder perspectives on the issues of innovation and diversification in the forest sector.
Think about which stakeholders to consider, as well as what value to place on their perspectives. For instance, if you place the highest value on consensus during your consultation and recommendation process, you risk not hearing important minority voices among your stakeholder group.
Who is traditionally consulted? Who may get left out of the discussion, if, for example, forestry executives are consulted as a key group of stakeholders? Women and Indigenous peoples are under-represented in management positions in the forest sector and on the corporate boards most likely to seek participation in consultations. Are Indigenous leaders consulting the broader community?
-Will the same engagement process work for all stakeholders? What are potential barriers to participation faced by different groups among your stakeholders?
-How might socio-economic status and family responsibilities affect access to consultations? Could certain factors prevent front-line workers or women from participating in the discussion? Measures such as holding meetings during working hours might allow these groups to participate.
-In this case, it would be particularly useful to consult those with knowledge of local ecosystems, including Indigenous forest sector organizations/representatives, community groups and other experts.

4. Taking The Test


Question 1 (Select the best answer.)
Gender is:
Roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society may construct or consider appropriate for men and women
Biological and physiological characteristics that define men, women and intersex persons
That’s right!

Question 2 (Select the best answer.)
GBA+ is conducted to:
Examine the effects of policies, programs, and initiatives on diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people
Ensure equality for women
Promote pay equity
That’s right!

Question 3 (True or false.)
Historical disparities do not need to be considered in the development of new policies, programs, and legislation.
True
False
That’s right!

Question 4 (True or false.)
Before you begin developing a policy or program, you will already know whether an issue impacts diverse groups of women, men and non-binary people differently based on your individual experience.
True
False
That’s right!

Question 5 (Select the best answer. )
Who is responsible for applying GBA+?
The head of the organization
Human resources officials
Status of Women Canada
Gender specialists
Any official in an organization who is contributing to government initiatives
Deputy Ministers
That’s right!

Question 6 (True or false.)
Conducting GBA+ will always conclude that disparities exist between men and women.
True
False
That’s right!

Question 7 (Select all that apply.)
Steps in the GBA+ process include:
Checking your assumptions
Gathering information and considering diverse stakeholder perspectives
Consulting your organization’s Employment Equity policy
You did not select the correct response(s).

Question 8 (Select the best answer.)
Which of these situations reflects bias/discrimination due to intersecting identity factors, as opposed to a single factor?
A gay, white man is refused a construction job, even though he has all the necessary skills and experience
An Indigenous woman is refused a job at a factory where many Indigenous men work “on the floor” in the factory and many women work in the administrative office
That’s right!

Question 9 (Select the best answer. )
Parental leave policies are an example of a flexible approach because:
Women and men are treated the same way
Both women and men may apply
It takes into account the evolving needs and circumstances of diverse parents
That’s right!

Question 10 (Select all that apply.)
Documenting the GBA+ process can assist you with:
Demonstrating to senior management that a thorough analysis has been undertaken in developing options
Developing communications strategies to explain decisions
Populating a bibliography
That’s right!

5. Final Thoughts


It was possible to pass the quiz (8 of 10 questions required), on the first try, just from winging it. Just try to imagine the most SJW answers possible.

Certificate arrived in about 10 minutes.

The survey insisted on knowing my gender. I am a unicorn.

Posted on

Court Of Appeal Rules Doctors Must Provide Abortions/Euthanasia, or Provide Referal

(article from Christian Legal Fellowship)

(Lifesite news also covered this)


The case above is one of Ontario doctors refusing to provide certain “reproductive health services” (a.k.a. abortion), and “medical assistance in dying” MAiD (a.k.a. euthanasia). Not only did they refuse to provide these services, they refused to help with the referrals procedures to others who would.

The Appellants refused on religious grounds. They claimed that requiring them to participate in these “medical services” violated their consciences and religious convictions. To be fair, we are talking about killing unborn children, eldery, and terminal patients. The other extreme would be more disturbing.

Their regulatory body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, says if they won’t perform such “health care services”, then they must help the patients get referred to doctors who will.

The Ontario Divisional Court agreed that this was the case. And now the Ontario Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling. Will this go to the Supreme Court of Canada? We will see.

Court of Appeal Quotes

E. Issues
[57] The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the applicable standard of review and is the Doré/Loyola framework or the Oakes framework applicable to this case?
(2) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion?
(3) Do the effective referral requirements of the Policies infringe the appellants’ s. 15(1) equality rights?
(4) If there is an infringement of the appellants’ Charter rights and/or freedoms, is it justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

Standard Of Review

[59] The normal rules of appellate review of lower court decisions, articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, apply on this appeal. Questions of law are reviewed on a correctness standard, and questions of fact and mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of palpable and overriding error: Housen, at paras. 8, 10, 36-37. The Divisional Court’s selection and application of the correctness standard to the Policies is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed by this court on a correctness standard.

If it is a question of fact, the standard is “overriding palpable error”. In essence, Appeals Courts tend to “give deference” to the Trial Judge since he/she is in a much better position to actually judge the case.

In questions of law, the standard is the correctness of the law itself.

In questions of mixed law and fact are viewed more towards “overriding palpable error”.

Religious Freedom

[62] In Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2018] 2 S.C.R. 293, at para. 62, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of religious freedom expressed in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336:

[T]he right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

[63] At para. 63, the court set out the requirements of the test:
[F]irst, that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion; and second, that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief.
This was the test applied by the Divisional Court, referring to Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, at para. 56. See also Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567, at para. 32.

[64] The sincerity of belief and interference are conceded. But the College contends that the interference is trivial and insubstantial and does not contravene s. 2(a).

[65] I disagree. To explain my reasons, it is necessary to examine the appellants’ beliefs and their objections to performing or referring patients for the procedures at issue.

All parties agree the beliefs are sincere. The College says it is trivial, while the Panel disagrees.

Section 15 and Equality

[87] The Divisional Court referred to the two-part test for establishing a breach of s. 15(1) articulated in Taypotat, at paras. 19-20: (1) whether, on its face or in its impact, a law creates a distinction on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group and instead imposes burdens or denies benefits in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.

[88] The focus of the inquiry is “whether a distinction has the effect of perpetuating arbitrary disadvantage on the claimant because of his or her membership in an enumerated or analogous group” such that it is a “discriminatory distinction”: Taypotat, at paras. 16, 18; and Quebec (Attorney General) v. A., 2013 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 331

[89] Applying this test, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ claim that the Policies infringe their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter. Without deciding whether the Policies create a distinction on the basis of religion, the Divisional Court held that the Policies do not have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating a disadvantage or promoting prejudice against religious physicians. Nor do they restrict access to a fundamental social institution or impede full membership in Canadian society.

To put it mildly, the Courts have decided that not all “equality rights” are treated equally. In other words, it is okay to discriminate on the basis of “protected grounds” as long as it falls within certain guidelines.

Allowed Under Section 1?

[97] The onus at this stage is on the College to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the infringement of the appellants’ freedom of religion is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society: Multani, at para. 43.
[98] In Oakes, at pp. 135 and 138-39, Dickson C.J. articulated a framework for the s. 1 analysis, which can be summarized as follows:
(a) the Charter-infringing measure must be “prescribed by law”;
(b) the objective of the impugned measure must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom;
(c) the means chosen must be reasonable and demonstrably justified – this is a “form of proportionality test” which will vary in the circumstances, but requires a balancing of the interests of society with the interests of individuals and groups and has three components:
(i) the measure must be rationally connected to the objective – i.e., carefully designed to achieve the objective and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;
(ii) the means chosen should impair the Charter right or freedom as little as possible; and
(iii)there must be proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the measure.

This is a fairly lengthy section, but this lays out the groundwork for determining whether Charter violations can otherwise be “saved”. Are there justifiable public interests in the breaches that are affirmed? Ultimately, the Court of Appeals said yes. These violations were justified on other grounds.

[186] The Fact Sheet identifies options that are clearly acceptable to many objecting physicians. Those who do not find them acceptable may be able to find other practice structures that will insulate them from participation in actions to which they object. If they cannot do so, they will have to seek out other ways in which to use their skills, training and commitment to patient care. I do not underestimate the individual sacrifices this may require. The Divisional Court correctly found, however, that the burden of these sacrifices did not outweigh the harm to vulnerable patients that would be caused by any reasonable alternative. That conclusion is not undermined by the fresh evidence before this court. Even taking the burden imposed on physicians at its most onerous, as framed by the appellants, the salutary effects of the Policies still outweigh the deleterious effects.

[187] As the Divisional Court observed, the appellants have no common law, proprietary or constitutional right to practice medicine. As members of a regulated and publicly-funded profession, they are subject to requirements that focus on the public interest, rather than their interests. In fact, the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship requires physicians to act at all times in their patients’ best interests, and to avoid conflicts between their own interests and their patients’ interests:

Closing Thoughts


This is the heart of the conclusion:
(A) Doctors have other options
(B) Doctors can alter their practice
(C) Public interest comes first
(D) Medicine is a publicly regulated profession.

One thing needs to be pointed out though: just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it MORAL. Abortion and euthanasia are killing. Period.

Although both abortion and assisted suicide have no criminal penalties against them, there are still huge scientific and moral arguments against both. This will be a topic for a coming piece.

If a person believes that carrying out just “health care services” amounts to murder, that is okay. But wouldn’t referrals of such procedures make a doctor an accessory to murder? Although one degree removed, the moral objection would be the same.

Bottom line: provide the service, or refer to someone else who will. You’re here to serve the public.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca393/2019onca393.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2018/2018onsc579/2018onsc579.html
(3) CLICK HERE, for R.v. Oakes (balancing test)
(4) CLICK HERE, for Carter v. Canada (struck down assisted suicide laws).
(5) CLICK HERE, for Ontario Human Rights Code.
(6) CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
(7) CLICK HERE, for some Charter cases.
(8) CLICK HERE, for Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 (standard for review)

Posted on

Digital Charter Coming After “Christchurch Call”

(Trudeau announcing new “Digital Charter”)

(New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern at “Christchurch Call”)

Yes, the Christchurch Call and the UN “digital cooperation” are 2 separate initiatives, but the result is the same: stamping out free speech online.

(The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)

(Liberal ex-Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulating internet)

1. Important Links

(1) https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-05-2019/the-christchurch-call-full-text/
(2) https://globalnews.ca/news/5283178/trudeau-digital-charter/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=%40globalnews
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-interview-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/economic.update.2018.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-govt-purges-sunni-shia-from-2019-terrorism-report-bill-c-59/
(6) https://www.blacklocks.ca/feds-to-list-approved-media/
(7) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Interesting UN Links from prior article.
(8) http://www.un.org/en/digital-cooperation-panel/
(9) http://www.un.org/en/pdfs/HLP-on-Digital-Cooperation_Press-Release.pdf
(10) https://digitalcooperation.org/
(11) https://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/noticias/4/48074/P48074.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl-i/p1f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl-i/top-bottom.xsl
(12) https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/events/files/program.pdf
(13) https://www.unescwa.org/sub-site/arabDIG
(14) https://www.unescwa.org/publications/internet-governance-challenges-and-opportunities-escwa-member-countries
(15) https://canucklaw.ca/un-wants-to-ban-criticism-of-islam-globally/

2. Text Of Christchurch Call

To that end, we, the Governments, commit to:
.
-Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
-Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
-Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
–Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism. Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:
-Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
-Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;

-Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

To that end, we, the online service providers, commit to:
.
-Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.
-Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:
Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
-Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content. Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:
-Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
Closing accounts where appropriate;
-Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.
-Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.
-Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.
-Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.
-Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.
-To that end, we, Governments and online service providers, commit to work collectively to:
-Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism in all its forms, including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
-Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content.
Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society.
-Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, including both the offline and online impacts of this activity.
-Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting illegal online activity in regard to detected and/or removed terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with rule of law and human rights protections.
–Support smaller platforms as they build capacity to remove terrorist and violent extremist content, including through sharing technical solutions and relevant databases of hashes or other relevant material, such as the GIFCT shared database.
–Collaborate, and support partner countries, in the development and implementation of best practice in preventing the dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content online, including through operational coordination and trusted information exchanges in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy rules.
-Develop processes allowing governments and online service providers to respond rapidly, effectively and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist or violent extremist content following a terrorist event. This may require the development of a shared crisis protocol and information-sharing processes, in a manner consistent with human rights protections.
–Respect, and for Governments protect, human rights, including by avoiding directly or indirectly contributing to adverse human rights impacts through business activities and addressing such impacts where they occur.

Recognise the important role of civil society in supporting work on the issues and commitments in the Call, including through:
.
-Offering expert advice on implementing the commitments in this Call in a manner consistent with a free, open and secure internet and with international human rights law;
–Working, including with governments and online service providers, to increase transparency;
-Where necessary, working to support users through company appeals and complaints processes.
-Affirm our willingness to continue to work together, in existing fora and relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and to build momentum and widen support for the Call.
-Develop and support a range of practical, non-duplicative initiatives to ensure that this pledge is delivered.
Acknowledge that governments, online service providers, and civil society may wish to take further cooperative action to address a broader range of harmful online content, such as the actions that will be discussed further during the G7 Biarritz Summit, in the G20, the Aqaba Process, the Five Country Ministerial, and a range of other fora.

Signatories:
Australia
Canada
European Commission
France
Germany
Indonesia
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Senegal
Spain
Sweden

3. Some Observations

Some observations:

  1. Combatting extremist ideologies and fighting inequality are lumped together.
  2. This will apparently be done “respecting free speech and human rights”, but aren’t those things already supposed to be protected?
  3. Parties want to “promot[e] positive alternatives and counter-messaging”. Doesn’t that sound like Onjective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, promote propaganda positive to migration?
  4. Encouraging media to use ethical practices when covering violence? And what, shut them down if they refuse?
  5. Widen support for the call? Collective suicide pact for free speech?
  6. Looking for expert advice in how to implement “the Call” without violating those pesky free speech and human rights laws. Perhaps you need another Jordan Peterson to make it sound nice and fluffy.
  7. Research to spot “ROOT CAUSES” of terrorism.
  8. Look for technical methods to remove terroristic or violent material, (or anything we deem to be violent or terroristic), and share the methods with others.
  9. Collaborate with partner countries, no real concern of whether they support terrorism themselves, as do many Islamic countries.
  10. Mess with algorithms to ensure users not directed to “inappropriate content”.
  11. Regular public reporting, sounds great, except when Governments censor necessary information in the name of not offending anyone, as seen here.
  12. Support INDUSTRY STANDARDS? So the internet “will” be regulated globally.
  13. And all of this misses a VERY IMPORTANT point: what happens when content is shared in Country A, but rules in Country B would render it illegal? Does the content get pulled down because it is offensive to some other nation in the world?

All in all, this is pretty chilling.

4. From Global(ist) News Article

“The platforms are failing their users. And they’re failing our citizens. They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation, and if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences,” he said Thursday.
.
“It’s up to the platforms and governments to take their responsibility seriously and ensure that people are protected online. You don’t have to put the blame on people like Mark Zuckerberg or dismiss the benefits of social platforms to know that we can’t rely exclusively on companies to protect the public interest,” Trudeau continued.
.
He announced that Canada would be launching a digital charter, touching on principles including universal access and transparency and serving as a guide to craft new digital policy.
.
Speaking about Canada’s upcoming federal election, he said the government was taking steps to eliminate fake news and that a new task force had been created in order to identify threats to the election and prevent foreign interference.

5. Remember? $595M Bribe

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

Not only will the Trudeau Government be cracking down on what it views as “fake news”, it will be subsidizing “friendly” or cooperative media. This is nothing short of propaganda. This is a government propping up dying media outlets financially. Of course, what will be expected in return? favourable coverage?

6. Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

To summarize so far, our government:
(1) Is a member of the UN, which wants to globally regulate the internet. This is referred to as “DIGITAL COOPERATION”. The same UN wants to globally ban criticism of Islam.
(2) Passes a “non-binding” motion, M-103, to ban Islamophobia.
(3) Passes Bill C-16, to ban criticism of their gender agenda, calling certain language to be hate speech.
(4) Signs the Global Migration Compact, which contains provisions (Objective 17(c)) to sensitise and regulate media.
(5) Announces plans to subsidize “certain” media, the 2018 economic update.
(6) Attends a convention, the Christchurch call, and signs the above resolution.
(7) Announces plans for a “digital charter”

Can Section 2 of the Charter — fundamental freedoms — protect us from this assault on free speech? Let’s hope so:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Most court cases have come down on the side of fundamental freedoms. If this digital charter comes to be, then certainly the 2 charters will collide.

7. Doing What UN Never Could?

The UN has for a long time tried to regulate our freedoms for the “global collective” or some other such nonsense.

But now, will we do this to ourselves? Will Western nations engage in their own freedom-suicide pact in order to provide the illusion of security from violent terrorists and extremists?

Western Liberals embrace global rule and regulation. So do “Conservatives”, and fake populists, who are basically globalists in disguise. It will be interesting to see how many will actually stand up for freedom instead of caving to pressure.

Posted on

A Case For Tort Reform: “Free-Speech” Grifters Want $5 Million

(Peterson interview after suing)

(Peterson announcing lawsuit to follow Shepherd)

(Pedantic Shepherd, YouTube is beside the point)

(Shepherd sues, then complains about being sued)

Background Information

The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.

It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.

Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.

Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.

Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
Were inappropriate things said? YES
Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO

Complete Hypocrisy

During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.

Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.

Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.

Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.

Karma In All Of This?

In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.

Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.

Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.

Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.

WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01

Some Law On Frivilous Proceedings

Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
.
Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1

Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.

Ontario Libel & Slander Act

Definitions
1 (1) In this Act,
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
.
(a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
(b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
“newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).

Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.

Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.

There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.

Some Canadian Cases

Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.

Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.

Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.

However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.

Ontario’s Bill 52

Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1

Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Purposes
Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
Objects
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

Final Thoughts On This

The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.

Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.

This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.

However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.

These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.

Hard to feel sorry for her anymore.

(1) Jordan Peterson On United Nations sustainable Development Agenda
(2) Bill C-16, Gender Identity Bill In Canada
(3) Louder With Crowder interview
(4) Peterson & Cathy Newman
(5) Faith Goldy Deplatformed
(6) Deplatforming Faith Goldy At “Free Speech” Event
(7) https://www.identitygrifting.ca/
(8) Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and WLU University and 3 employees
(9) Peterson Interview On Lawsuit (2:55)
(10) National Post article on WLU 3rd Party Defence
(11) Ontario Human Rights Code
(12) Ontario Court forms index.
(13) Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure
(14) Ontario Libel and Slander Act
(15) Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995
(16) Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest

Posted on

Thoughts On Potential Canada-China Free Trade Deal

(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/consultations/fta-ale.aspx?lang=eng
(2) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/consultations/china-chine/index.aspx?lang=eng
(3) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/consultations/china-chine/toolkit-outils.aspx?lang=eng
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(5) https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleswallace1/2018/07/21/chinas-currency-manipulation-is-a-response-to-trumps-tariffs/#33295e9a663b
(6) https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/11/harper_in_china_free_trade_agreement_with_china_in_canadas_sights.html
(7) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-trudeau-intends-to-work-toward-free-trade-deal-with-china-despite/
(8) https://www.maximebernier.com/canada_china_free_trade_speech
(9) https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-pms-trade-trip-china
(10) https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/disciplining-chinas-trade-practices-wto-how-wto-complaints-can-help
(11) https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa856.pdf

3. From Archived Pages

There have been many concerns with dealing with China. To name just some of them:

  1. Human rights abuses
  2. No respect for intellectual property
  3. Preferential treatment
  4. Unsafe products entering Canada

To put is bluntly, the answers are not reassuring. They are the political-talk we have come to expect that avoids giving concrete answers.

Canada has robust regulatory requirements and strong enforcement action can be taken on unsafe products entering the country. Regardless of country of origin, if the Canadian government identifies products that do not meet regulatory requirements, enforcement action will be taken. Enforcement action can take a number of forms, including recall.

Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China works to protect Canadian investments in China, and is among the most ambitious investment agreements China has ever ratified.

A possible FTA could include provisions that would help to mitigate the risk of IP infringements. We would like to hear from you on your experience with IP rights in the context of the Canada-China commercial relationship. Additionally, Canadian firms are encouraged to raise any IP problems they have in China or other overseas market with the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.

This all sounds lovely, but to a critical person, this seems more like an attempt to emotionally soothe than to persuade with facts.

4. Major Job Losses

Looking at the Economic Policy Institute Study, shown here, from 2001 to 2017, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China as a result of a growing trade deficit. China can produce much cheaper and in much higher numbers.

Both increased imports and technical products have done a number on the US job market, who simply cannot compete.

While this is an American study, it would be wise to use it as a cautionary tale for Canada as well.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION EXPLAINED


One unfair way to gain an advantage over a foreign competitor is to manipulate the currency. China has been doing this for a long time, and it leads to an economic advantage that few can match. The Forbes article explains it well.

First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.

While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.

When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.

In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.

5. CATO Institute Hypocrisy

Note: CATO calls itself a public policy institute, dedicated to free trade, liberalization and free markets. It is based in the US. But its conflicting observations are disturbing. From their website, they post an article which contains these remarks:

The Trump administration believes that the international dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers no effective remedy for these practices, and prefers an approach that relies mostly on unilateral tariffs. The administration sees the issue as follows. China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market. China engages in widespread cheating in its trade practices, including not only high tariffs, domestic content requirements, and other traditional forms of protectionism, but also rigged regulations that erect trade barriers by favoring Chinese companies and outright theft of foreign IP. And, Trump and his trade cohorts say repeatedly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do under current WTO rules to stop this predatory Chinese behavior.

Worth noting is that CATO doesn’t dispute the accuracy or factual basis of Donald Trump’s claims. They don’t dispute the one sided advantage that is posed here. However, there is an interesting brochure that CATO released:

Supporting China’s membership in the WTO in 2001 was not a mistake by the United States. All 163 other members of the WTO, including the United States, are much better off because China is inside the rules-based global trading system and has not been left outside it. China has made great strides since 2001 toward full compliance with the rules of the WTO trading system.

An organization which promotes liberalized trade is okay when one of its members blatantly acts against the rules and its principles. Okay.

6. Main Canadian Parties Support This

Despite all the problems outline above, it is:
SUPPORTED, by People’s Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Conservative Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Liberal Party

However, NDP acts <a href=”https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-pms-trade-trip-china”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>as the voice of reason.

A potential free trade agreement raises many questions that are yet unanswered. China has no free press, torture is widespread, workers do not have a right to collective bargaining, and hundreds of human rights defenders and dissidents have been detained.

Environmental protections, labour standards, and human rights must be at the forefront of any trade and investment discussions, and any trade deal must support Canadian jobs, not just focus on selling Canadian resources to be processed abroad.

The Liberals have failed to take action to address steel dumping by Chinese companies which put Canadian businesses at a dangerous disadvantage. China also has a questionable record on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and does not have market economy status, which means it would be very difficult to have a level playing field in a free trade deal.

There are also concerns about protecting the intellectual property of Canadians and the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies. Before making a decision on whether to begin formal negotiations, the government needs to clearly address all these concerns, and consult with Canadians before rushing into a deal that is against their interests.”

What the hell? Why am I agreeing with the NDP on this? Since when did an openly socialist party become the voice of reason?

The again, a <a href=”https://www.nationalcitizensalliance.ca/NCA-trade-environment-policy-statement/”” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>NATIONALIST approach would also conclude free trade with China is a bad idea.

7. Not Worth It

Watch the video with Tucker Carlson, at the top of the article. He explains that it is a better way to ensure stability of communities and jobs than to look at a purely profit motive. Well worth a watch. While the talk relates to automating vehicles — and putting truck drivers out of work — the same rationale can be applied here.

While there may be some benefits to an agreement with China, there are simply too many social costs to Canada that need to be seriously looked at:

  • How many jobs will be lost?
  • What will happen to communities with major job losses?
  • What about environmental protection?
  • Would we be rewarding sweatshop conditions?
  • Can we protect people’s intellectual property?
  • Will we be undercut by currency manipulation?
  • Is getting cheaper products worth the social cost?

It’s not all about GDP, stock prices, or corporate profits. What will a free trade agreement with China do to Canada?

OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.

Posted on

Morgane Oger Further Weaponizes Human Rights Codes, $55K Ruling

(BC “Human Rights” Commission Ruling)

(Morgane Oger Foundation)

(Proposed “Hate Map” Across Canada)

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.pdf
(2) ttp://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-16-adding-gender-identity-to-human-rights-code-and-criminal-code/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/weaponizing-the-human-rights-codes-and-refugee-boards/

Some Thoughts

Our favourite “serial-victim” Morgane Oger, is in the news again, this time for getting a $55,000 award ($35K for hurt feelings, and $20K in punitive damages). This was William Whatcott for calling Oger “a man”. (Oger is transgender).

A few interesting observations in reading the ruling:

(1) Morgane Oger seems perfectly content silencing William Whatcott’s free speech and right to religious expression in the name of gender identity.

(2) The BC Tribunal deliberately and repeatedly skirted the truthfulness of Whatcott’s claim that Oger is biologically male. Hormones, surgery and legal paperwork don’t change biology.

(3) The BC Tribunal awarded $35,000 in damages without any damages being proven. How exactly does one prove “hurt feelings and dignity”?

3. BC Human Rights Code

Discrimination and intent
2
Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Section 2 makes it very clear: absolutely no intent is required on the part of anyone in order to be found to violate someone’s human rights. For a “quasi-judicial” board, this is very disturbing. However, it seems to be the case with all provinces.

Discriminatory publication
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication, a communication intended to be private or a communication related to an activity otherwise permitted by this Code.

Oger claims that the publications were contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the code.

Evidence
27.2 (1) A member or panel may receive and accept on oath, by affidavit or otherwise, evidence and information that the member or panel considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not the evidence or information would be admissible in a court of law.
(2) Nothing is admissible in evidence before a member or panel that is inadmissible in a court because of a privilege under the law of evidence.
(3) Despite section 4, subsection (1) of this section does not override an Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for which evidence may be admitted or used in any proceeding.
(4) A member or panel may direct that all or part of the evidence of a witness be heard in private.

(4) flies in the face of an open inquiry, and doesn’t set any guidelines as to “when” it would be appropriate.
One of the problems Whatcott cited was the Commission refusing to hear all the evidence.

Remedies
37 (1) If the member or panel designated to hear a complaint determines that the complaint is not justified, the member or panel must dismiss the complaint.
(2) If the member or panel determines that the complaint is justified, the member or panel
(a) must order the person that contravened this Code to cease the contravention and to refrain from committing the same or a similar contravention,
(b) may make a declaratory order that the conduct complained of, or similar conduct, is discrimination contrary to this Code,
(c) may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or both of the following:
(i) take steps, specified in the order, to ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice;
(ii) adopt and implement an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups if the evidence at the hearing indicates the person has engaged in a pattern or practice that contravenes this Code, and
(d) if the person discriminated against is a party to the complaint, or is an identifiable member of a group or class on behalf of which a complaint is filed, may order the person that contravened this Code to do one or more of the following:
(i) make available to the person discriminated against the right, opportunity or privilege that, in the opinion of the member or panel, the person was denied contrary to this Code;
(ii) compensate the person discriminated against for all, or a part the member or panel determines, of any wages or salary lost, or expenses incurred, by the contravention;
(iii) pay to the person discriminated against an amount that the member or panel considers appropriate to compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect or to any of them.

In short, the BC Human Rights Code can award money if it rules that your feelings were hurt, or your dignity or self respect was hurt. No need to prove “actual” damages.

4. Section 2(b) Of Charter

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association

5. From HRT Ruling

William Whatcott identifies himself as a Christian activist. When he learned of Ms. Oger’s candidacy, he resolved to stop her being elected. He was not a member of her riding, nor did he research her platform or the policies which she sought to advance. The sole basis for his campaign against her was that she is a transgender woman and therefore, in his view, unsuitable to hold public office. 

Very interesting choice of words. Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “actually is” a woman.

Mr. Whatcott was not a resident in Ms. Oger’s riding. She came to his attention after he had decided there were no suitable political options within his own riding. He says that he had decided not to vote in the election at all, but then turned to prayer. He asked God how he could help in the election. He started researching the candidates across the province and, in this way, came across Ms. Oger. He learned that she had been active in lobbying for amendments to the Code to add the grounds of “gender identity and expression”, and in promoting education about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools. Most importantly, however, he was upset that the media and public at large were “pretending” that Ms. Oger was a woman. He fundamentally believes that gender is static and derived from the genitalia that a person has at birth. He believes that Ms. Oger is a man. He sees himself as the small boy in the fairy tale about the Emperor with no clothes the only one brave enough to speak the truth about Ms. Oger’s gender. He decided to focus his energies on her campaign. In doing so, he describes Ms. Oger herself as “incidental” and “small” within his larger fight for social order and freedom. 

The first part gets glossed over. Oger is trying help enact 2 policies that Whatcott is bothered by:
(A) Bill C-16, to add “gender identity” to the Criminal Code and Human Rights Code.
(B) Bringing SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) into schools and have it taught to young children.

In all fairness, “both” of the above issues rub a lot of people the wrong way.

[53] To the extent that s. 7 is unique, it is because it expressly and exclusively targets speech. Mr. Whatcott argues that, in doing so, it violates his Charter‐guaranteed rights to freedom of religion and expression ss. 2(a) and (b). In his final reply, he added an argument that it violates his right to life, liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.  

[54]This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Charter: Administrative Tribunals Act, s . 45; Code, s. 32(i). I cannot find s. 7 of the Code unconstitutional, or that any of Mr. Whatcott’s Charter rights have been violated in the course of Ms. Oger’s human rights  complaint against him.

 

[55]There is no question, however, that this complaint engages Charter protections. In these circumstances, I must interpret and apply the Code in a manner that proportionately balances its purposes with those protections. The framework for this analysis has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in three cases: Doré v. Québec (Tribunal des Professions), 2012 SCC 12 [Doré]; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 [Loyola]; and Trinity  Western University v. Law Society of BC, 2018 SCC 32 [TWU]. 

While simultaneously claiming not to be able to apply the Charter, the Tribunal says it will balance the rights of the Charter v.s. the Code.

A. Factual context 
1. Discrimination against transgender people 
. This is a significant time for trans and gender diverse people. Their long fight for equality is bearing some fruit, as society begins to adjust its traditionally static and binary understanding of gender, and its tolerance for people to identify and express their gender authentically. One indicator of this progress is the 2016 amendment to the Code that added the grounds of gender identity and expression. 

[61] However, as this hearing made clear, the journey is far from over. Unlike other groups protected by the Code, transgender people often find their very existence the subject of public debate and condemnation. What flows from this existential denial is, naturally, a view that transpeople are less worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. In the hearing room for this complaint, we were witness to repeated, deliberate, and flagrant attacks on Ms. Oger based on nothing more than a belief that her very existence is an affront. 

(A) The Tribunal actually referred to this section as “factual context”, but then goes on to make a number of straw man arguments.
(B) It is not a fight for equality. That was never the issue.
(C)”Traditionally static and binary understanding of gender”? Actually, there has never been evidence that there are more than 2 genders. Simply passing a law does not erase science. A government could conceivably pass a law saying that dogs are cats, but it would not be based in reality.
(D) Gender identity and expression? Don’t these contradict reality? Merely expressing oneself or identifying oneself a certain way does not make it so.
(E) Questioning the reality of something not based on science is a hate crime now? Got it.

[62] And so, despite some gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. Their lives are marked by “disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping, and vulnerability”: F(C) v. Albert (Vital Statistics), 2014 ABQB 237 at para. 58; see also Rainbow  Committee of Terrace v. City of Terrace, 2002 BCHRT 26 at paras. 47-51. They are stereotyped as “diseased, confused, monsters and freaks”: Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society, 2002. 
BCHRT 1 at paras. 136137, overturned 2005 BCCA 601 (not on this point). Transpeople face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide, and poverty: XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at paras. 164-166. For transgender children, antitrans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects: Christophe Cornu (2016), “Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in  education; A human-rights based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Journal of LGBT Youth, 13:1‐2, 6‐17 at pp 7‐8. 

(A) How are they marginalized? They have entire government bodies to fight specifically for their rights.
(B) Substance abuse, suicide, and mental health problems? Doesn’t that signify that there might be something seriously wrong with what they are doing?
(C) Children should not be transitioning. Period.

[64] Mr. Whatcott and the JCCF sought to rely on statistics about the poor health and social outcomes for transgender people as proof that – at best – the merits of being transgender was a matter for ongoing study and debate and – at worst –it was a bad lifestyle choice, whichought to be publicly discouraged. I agree with Ms. Oger that this is an illconceived attempt to “take the data about the consequences of being a victim of oppression, or the consequences of being marginalized, and turn that into the root cause of the issue”.  

[65] The poor health, economic, and social outcomes for many transgender people are not a signal of their inherent worth but rather of the significant degree to which they continue to face marginalization, stigma, and discrimination. They illustrate how much work remains to be done to make the Code’s objective of an equal society into a reality. 

(A) The Tribunal specifically states they will not consider statistical data. How very “scientific and reasoned” of them.
(B) Another straw-man argument. No one is saying these people are not worthy, but that there are very serious mental health issues that need to be addressed. Issues the tribunal has no interest in addressing.

[75] There is no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his Charter right to freedom of religion. Ms. Oger concedes that Mr. Whatcott has a sincerely held religious belief that it is his duty to spread his views about transgender people: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 65. This concession was appropriate. Mr. Whatcott identifies as Christian and describes himself as a “flawed Christian activist”. He says that his theology largely lines up with that of the Lutheran Church. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that Evangelical Christians, and I believe it is fair to count Mr. Whatcott as one, “carry their religious beliefs and values beyond their private lives and into their work, education, and politics”: TWU at para. 67. This is certainly true of Mr. Whatcott. For many years, he has manifested his religious beliefs through activism, beginning with antiabortion activism and then, in more recent years, in activism against the LGBTQ community. His beliefs about transgender people namely that they do not exist and are engaged in a falsehood  stem from his interpretation of the Christian Bible. He believes it is God’s will that he spread the Christian gospel and his views about the “morality” of being transgender. 

(A) Now we get to the heart of it. This would actually limit religious freedom.
(B) The Tribunal knows this, and will act against it anyway.

[77] There is similarly no dispute that a decision against Mr. Whatcott would limit his freedom to publicly express his views about transgender people generally, and Ms. Oger specifically. This engages his right to free expression. As I will discuss below, the scope of freedom of expression, and the significance of any possible infringement, varies according to the type of speech and the extent to which it furthers or detracts from the core values underlying the freedom. However, at this threshold stage, it is sufficient that the Flyer was a form of expression and that any decision restricting Mr. Whatcott’s right to distribute it publicly would limit his expressive rights to some extent. 

[78] With respect to Mr. Whatcott’s s. 7 Charter rights, I agree with the Attorney General that it would not be fair to consider that argument, which was raised for the first time in Mr. Whatcott’s final reply, after the hearing of this complaint had concluded. Regardless, the argument has no merit. A decision by this Tribunal would not restrict Mr. Whatcott’s life, liberty, or security of the person. The remedial jurisdiction conferred by s. 37 of the Code is in no way equivalent to penal consequences. It does not threaten Mr. Whatcott’s life or liberty. While I accept that individuals found to violate the Code may encounter, as a consequence, a degree of stigma and social disapproval, such consequences do not rise to a level of “serious  state imposed psychological stress

(A) No threat to his security? Try not paying the fine and see what happens.
(B) You also say the Commission “will” order the so-called bad behaviour to stop. And if it doesn’t, you’ll fine him again.
(C) Who cares if this is the first time the argument has been brought up?

Now a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

First and foremost, free expression is essential to the proper functioning of democratic governance. As Rand J. put it, “government by the free public opinion of an open society . . . demands the condition of a virtually unobstructed access to and diffusion of ideas”: Switzman, at p. 306. 
.
  Second, the free exchange of ideas is an “essential precondition of the  search for truth”: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 803, per  McLachlin J. This rationale, sometimes known as the “marketplace of ideas”, extends beyond the political domain to any areaof debate where truth is sought through the exchange of information and ideas. Information is disseminated and propositions debated. In the course of debate, misconceptions and errors are exposed. What withstands testing  emerges as truth. 
.
  Third, free expression has intrinsic value as an aspect of self‐realization for both speakers and listeners. As the majority observed in Irwin Toy, at p. 976, “the diversity in forms of individual selffulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, uut also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed”.  Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 at paras. 4750; see also R v. Keegstra,  [1990] 3 SCR 697 [Keegstra], at paras. 87‐89; 

This is quite laughable, as the Tribunal has no interest in the factual basis of Whatcott’s claim (that Oger is male), nor in the statistical research and evidence regarding transgenders in general.

[119] I reject this proposition in the strongest possible terms. The question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another. This does not mean that all expression that criticizes or questions the existence of transgender people violates the Code. Here I distinguish between public debate about, for example, the scope of rights that different groups in society may be afforded, and commentary like that which is in the Flyer, which denies the very existence of transpeople. Understood in its proper context, it is simply not accurate to place this type of expression at the core of s. 2(b) values. 

(A) False equivalence. The reality of transitioning is not the same thing as racial supremacy.
(B) False equivalence. Questioning whether trans-people exist is not the same thing as saying a person should not have dignity.
(C) The flyer is inappropriate, but once again the Tribunal dodges the issue of “truth”.

[125] This argument confuses distinctions with discrimination. Efforts to increase the participation and representation of groups which have historically been excluded from political life serve the goals of achieving substantive equality and enriching Canada’s democracy. But to advocate against including those groups in politics is not the same thing as arguing for their deliberate inclusion. The law has long understood that identical treatment of groups is often the very source of serious inequality: Kapp at para. 27, citing Andrews. Put another way, “different treatment in the service of equity for disadvantaged groups is an expression of [substantive] equality, not an exception to it”: P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed. Supp. 2007), vol. 2, at p. 5553; cited with approval in Kapp at para. 37. It is simply not reasonable to equate efforts to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in government with those which would seek to continue to exclude them. While I acknowledge that individual voters may choose to discriminate within the privacy of a ballot box, it does not further Canada’s democracy to suggest that a person’s connection with a historically disadvantaged group is a legitimate point on which to openly campaign against them. 

To summarize this word salad: ACTUAL equal treatment of people can be wrong, since it doesn’t take “historical marginalization” into account. Hence the idea of 15(2) of the Charter (affirmative action). This is essentially different rules for different groups in order to “increase representation”.

The decision is long one (100 pages), but this covers the main points. The Tribunal also goes on at length about Whatcott refusing to refer to Oger as “she” despite being repeatedly told not to.

While Whatcott comes off as a bit of a jerk, it is hard to come up with much sympathy for Oger, who is essentially a professional victim. The proposed “hate map” is essentially a doxing tool for opinions that they don’t agree with.

It is also disturbing to see the Tribunal so uninterested in fact or truth. Legitimate concerns about whether a person can transition are deemed hate speech. Further, the tribunal doesn’t care for evidence presented regarding statistics of trans-people. If anything, it is deemed as more of a reason to grant special status.

Whatcott “identifies” as a Christian activist, yet Oger “really is” a woman. The Tribunal is inconsistent in their own standards.

And as seems to be the case in all provinces, the “human rights” code stipulates that no intent is necessary for a finding against a person or group.

Will there be an appeal (in the form of an application for judicial review)? We will find out. But this sets a very bad precedent.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress