House of Commons passes bill to protect trans people's human rights

:smiley:

[strikeout]Blame[/strikeout] Praise Canada.

matt, you may know this already, but the President of the CBA has written a letter to the Minister of Justice, “. . . to encourage your continued work to ensure protection of human rights in Canada, by enacting specific legal protections for transgender individuals.”

Yes, but the problem with the laundry list approach is that it ends up causing situations like what I and my other European coworkers faced in the US, of being discriminated on grounds of nationality because the Americans involved were convinced that it’s only national origin which is an issue (HR wouldn’t even listen to us and we figured it wasn’t worth it to try and have a suit abroad - the discrimination meant we had to return to our home countries).

I’ve had to enforce rules before: anything which looked like a laundry list bred barracks lawyers.

There was one case in Spain where the defendant claimed that the list of protections in our current Constitution was a complete laundry list. The first tribunal failed against him. The second one as well, as did further ones. Finally the Constitutional Tribunal did too, and they made a point of calling up pretty much every single Father of the Constitution which was still alive and compos mentis, and add their confirmation that the list in the Constitution is to be treated as a series of examples, not as a limit on the protections, and that they hadn’t included sexual orientation or gender identity because they hadn’t even thought about those - not because it’s ok to discriminate on those grounds. The example one of those same Fathers of the Constitution (a conservative who was a minister under Franco) used on a TV interview was “nobody will ever write in a law ‘do not discriminate against someone who supports a different soccer club than you do’ - but it is still something which is irrelevant to any job, access to services or what-ever and completely stupid to discriminate for.” Under our legal system, that single case is enough; I realize that common-law systems can get more complicated when it comes to precedent.

Congratulations, matt, I do hope it passes through the Senate as well.