Page 18 reads: “Gender-based harassment can involve: (5) Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun.”
The policy itself is not legally binding, Cossman says, but a human rights tribunal “does tend to follow the policy that’s articulated.”
The OHRC is a provincial body, however — whereas Bill C-16 is federal — but Brown says the Department of Justice has said the federal guidelines will mirror the OHRC policy.
So it’s kind of speculative, but assuming the federal guidelines do mirror the OHRC policy, then refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun can count as gender-based harassment.
Sure, that’s why I said you could possibly end up going to jail, not that you would go.
What I’m getting out of this is that the anti-Covid protocol people think that the “true” motive of people following Covid safety protocols is that the anti-covid folks have a deep misunderstanding of the laws, legal precedent and what is actually going on, and instead rely on professional rabble rousers and basic know-nothings in the same mold as Jordan Peterson.
In other words, they think that the covid protocols are government overreach, because some dude with a megaphone and little knowledge of the facts told them it was.
Without Northern Piper here, I guess it falls to me to explain Canadian law in this area. Full disclosure: I am a Canadian lawyer who practices in the Human Rights area.
Bill C-16 makes no mention of pronouns. Period. End stop. Quit thinking about pronouns, because the bill makes no mention of them. Jordan Peterson is full of crap, if he believes “not using one’s preferred pronouns” will land the speaker in jail. But, as usual, the American right-wing media, and those that follow it, gloms onto this, and uses it as an excuse that “Canada has no free speech.”
Canada’s hate speech laws are well-defined in the caselaw, and basically boil down to “you cannot use speech to advocate genocide, or to wipe out an identifiable group.” So, saying “I hate gays,” or “I hate Blacks” means nothing and is totally legal; but “Let’s round up all the gays [or Blacks] and shoot them,” does.
Note that I mentioned an “identifiable group”–this does not extend to individuals. Calling Marvin, who now wears a dress and wants to be known as “Marva,” as “he,” does not violate any law. It’s not nice, and Marva may not like it, but it’s not illegal. Saying “Let’s round up all the trans men in dresses and shoot them” rises into the level of illegality. See the difference?
Now, on to Human Rights commissions. They receive the complaint, which they may or may not accept. They are not courts, and have no power to put people in jail. If they determine, after investigation, that the complaint is valid, they might (but no guarantees) elevate it to the quasi-court known as the Tribunal, which likewise has no power to put people in jail. After a fair hearing from all parties (and yes, I have participated in these for my clients), the tribunal makes a decision. The complainant is correct, in which case monetary damages or other damages (e.g. sensitivity training) flow; or the complainant is incorrect, in which case nothing happens.
Human Rights tribunal decisions can be appealed up into the real courts, but only to determine whether they were correct. In any event, nobody’s going to jail.
Jordan Peterson is full of it if he thinks “using the wrong pronouns” will land him in jail. Bill C-16 says no such thing. But it fires up his American supporters, I suppose, who are too stupid to check Canadian sources, which will tell you that he’s just blowing smoke. You want the straight dope (heh) on this, you consult Canadian sources and Canadian lawyers. You don’t consult American sources.
This is the situation mentioned by the two experts in the article as possibly applicable to using the wrong pronouns. According to them, if someone refused to comply with the tribunal’s order then they could be jailed for contempt. Do you disagree?
DemonTree specifically referenced pronouns again in her post, which Spoons directly addressed, and stated directly that, no, misusing pronouns won’t get you in trouble with the tribunal, so there would be no order to refuse to comply with.
Basically so. It has to do with a long standing position among a segment of the population and culture: “don’t tell me how to live”, becomes, “the rightful job of the state is to protect and endorse the way I live”.
I’ll let the Canalawyers go into the factual details but I can see how Americans used to the American way of doing things raise eyebrows over the process being mentioned. Down here, an employer or media venue can fire you or ban you, but to involve the power of the state to impose a mandatory penalty, it’s “take me to court [for actual damages / on charges of a statuted crime] or just sit there and take it or tune me out”.
You mean, just to get even further off-topic? First, she was concerned with misnaming someone leading to jail time, and now, she’s just generally concerned with Canada’s human rights commission for some reason? Maybe she should start a new thread.
And, since I have nothing more to add to this hijack, since I’m decidedly not a Canadian human rights lawyer, I’ll just bow out.
AIU the article, refusing to use preferred name and pronouns is not a hate crime. But it could possibly constitute harassment, a complaint of which would be referred to the Human Rights commission, and if the Human Rights tribunal uphold this complaint, they can impose penalties. Then if the defendant refuses to comply with the tribunal’s order, they can go to jail for contempt.
@Spoons said the tribunal has no power to put people in jail, but possibly he just means no direct power. The article says that refusal to comply with the tribunal’s order could result in jail for contempt. I was asking him if he disagrees with this part.
For what it’s worth, I think a Democratic thing and a scientific thing have become synonymous these days. There actually is something the Democrats could have done back in the day, but is no longer an option. Had the Democrats done some pandering to the John Birch / know nothing types back in the day, things might be different now. In particular I’m picturing a scenario in which the anti-science types were more evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans. Short of having gone a different way back when the Republicans started attracting the lion’s share of know nothings, I agree that there’s not anything else Democrats can do.