[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

Unfortunate, maybe. Necessary, very much so.

[crazy canuck]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

It is not just an obnoxious assumption.  It is one that is contrary to Human Rights Codes in Canada.  That is where the analogies BB makes break down.  There is no equivalency between the prejudices that animate the "gay treatments" and someone wanting to get some plastic surgery or feel a bit better about themselves.

[HVC]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

It is not just an obnoxious assumption.  It is one that is contrary to Human Rights Codes in Canada.  That is where the analogies BB makes break down.  There is no equivalency between the prejudices that animate the "gay treatments" and someone wanting to get some plastic surgery or feel a bit better about themselves.

double eyelid surgery would be equivalent. or i guess a  nosejob for a black person. That's the thing though, you can go back and forth on other examples for other minority groups. Looking at the issue on its own you're criminalizing something that an adult should have the choice in. Do I think it's stupid that conversion therapy is a thing? I sure do. I also feel bad for the people who feel ashamed enough to try the therapy, but I still think it should be their right (choice? I think right has a different legal meaning, which I am wholly unqualified to discuss)

[Barrister]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

It is not just an obnoxious assumption.  It is one that is contrary to Human Rights Codes in Canada.  That is where the analogies BB makes break down.  There is no equivalency between the prejudices that animate the "gay treatments" and someone wanting to get some plastic surgery or feel a bit better about themselves.

I think Malthus had an excellent example: skin lighteners and hair straighteners.  Both are, deep down, animated by the notion that white appearances are better than black appearances.

Human Rights Codes don't cover how won feels about onesself.  You can not discriminate against yourself.  And the notion of a gay conversion therapy ban runs contrary to other powerful constitutional norms - freedom of expression and freedom of association as guaranteed by the Charter.

[Malthus]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

It is not just an obnoxious assumption.  It is one that is contrary to Human Rights Codes in Canada.  That is where the analogies BB makes break down.  There is no equivalency between the prejudices that animate the "gay treatments" and someone wanting to get some plastic surgery or feel a bit better about themselves.

It's not illegal to be prejudiced; it's contrary to the legislation to discriminate in such a manner as to harm someone else in certain ways.

Take for example the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Discriminatory Practices

Denial of good, service, facility or accommodation

5 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 5.

Denial of commercial premises or residential accommodation

6 It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation

(a) to deny occupancy of such premises or accommodation to any individual, or

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 6.

Employment

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 7
1980-81-82-83, c. 143, s. 3(F).

Employment applications, advertisements

8 It is a discriminatory practice

(a) to use or circulate any form of application for employment, or

(b) in connection with employment or prospective employment, to publish any advertisement or to make any written or oral inquiry

that expresses or implies any limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 8.

Employee organizations

9 (1) It is a discriminatory practice for an employee organization on a prohibited ground of discrimination

(a) to exclude an individual from full membership in the organization;

(b) to expel or suspend a member of the organization; or

(c) to limit, segregate, classify or otherwise act in relation to an individual in a way that would deprive the individual of employment opportunities, or limit employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual, where the individual is a member of the organization or where any of the obligations of the organization pursuant to a collective agreement relate to the individual.

(2) [Repealed, 2011, c. 24, s. 165]

(3) [Repealed, 1998, c. 9, s. 12]

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 9
1998, c. 9, s. 12
2011, c. 24, s. 165.

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization

(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or

(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The point is that, outside of these limits, you can be as bigoted as you like and it's not illegal (assuming you aren't going around committing crimes based on your bigotry). It is not the case that "deciding to become straight" or even "providing a service to assist those deciding to become straight" is contrary to human rights legislation. What is missing is that, even assuming for the purposes of argument that this desire is an expression of bigotry, it isn't one of the things that the legislation prohibits; it is not a "discriminatory practice".

[Malthus]

The real basis of the objection is that the impugned acts are based on obnoxious assumptions (straight is better to be than gay; White is better to be than Black). However, while it makes every bit of sense to criticize such assumptions, using the state to enforce those criticisms makes less sense - and sets an unfortunate precedent.

It is not just an obnoxious assumption.  It is one that is contrary to Human Rights Codes in Canada.  That is where the analogies BB makes break down.  There is no equivalency between the prejudices that animate the "gay treatments" and someone wanting to get some plastic surgery or feel a bit better about themselves.

I think Malthus had an excellent example: skin lighteners and hair straighteners.  Both are, deep down, animated by the notion that white appearances are better than black appearances.

Human Rights Codes don't cover how won feels about onesself.  You can not discriminate against yourself.  And the notion of a gay conversion therapy ban runs contrary to other powerful constitutional norms - freedom of expression and freedom of association as guaranteed by the Charter.

Hence, the better ground in my opinion to prohibit it: it is fraudulent. The "therapy" has never been shown to actually work.

Regulating quackery is a reasonable exercise of government power (indeed, they ought to go further, and regulate out of existence a lot more quackery - as I've said before, it simply doesn't make sense for the government to be implicitly approving of stuff like homeopathy, which is purely a placebo scam).

[PRC]

Hence, the better ground in my opinion to prohibit it: it is fraudulent. The "therapy" has never been shown to actually work.

Regulating quackery is a reasonable exercise of government power (indeed, they ought to go further, and regulate out of existence a lot more quackery - as I've said before, it simply doesn't make sense for the government to be implicitly approving of stuff like homeopathy, which is purely a placebo scam).

The rumour is it worked on Jason Kenney. 

[crazy canuck]

It's not illegal to be prejudiced; it's contrary to the legislation to discriminate in such a manner as to harm someone else in certain ways.

You missed the point.  Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[Malthus]

It's not illegal to be prejudiced; it's contrary to the legislation to discriminate in such a manner as to harm someone else in certain ways.

You missed the point.  Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.

You aren't addressing the opposition here: which is, there is no such thing as a prohibition against discriminating against yourself.

Prohibited: "I will not serve you or employ you, because you are Black, Gay or a Woman".

Not Prohibited: "I do not wish to be Black, Gay or a Woman".

[Oexmelin]

I think Malthus had an excellent example: skin lighteners and hair straighteners.  Both are, deep down, animated by the notion that white appearances are better than black appearances.

Things are different than people. Skin lighteners and hair straighteners don't answer your objections. They don't pursue you within your family. They don't wake you up at night for prayer vigils, or threaten you if you don't take them.

Again, I am not sure that an outright ban is the thing to do - but we ought to at least acknowledge some measure of difference between inanimate things (homeopathy, crucifix), communities with embedded power relationships, and targets that are vulnerable (minorities).

At least, that is, until we find a cure for conservatism.

[Barrister]

At least, that is, until we find a cure for conservatism.

Oexmelin, you're better than this.

[HVC]

At least, that is, until we find a cure for conservatism.

Oexmelin, you're better than this.

Sounds like you need liberal therapy

[Oexmelin]

Oexmelin, you're better than this.

I wish I were. On that particular topic, someone close to me committed suicide, many years ago, because of the general intolerance of the church of the LDS, of which bullshit conversion therapy was a prominent part of the package. Living in Trumplandia has considerably lowered my tolerance for hateful conservative rhetoric, and exposed me to their destructive capacity more more than I ever was back in Montreal. I knew it could lead to death. I just had little idea of just how it truly worked, and how relentless it can be. 

That being said, I am sorry. It was meant to illustrate my point, but it was indeed a cheap shot.

[Grey Fox]

Conservatives should ask themselves this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU often.

[Malthus]

I think Malthus had an excellent example: skin lighteners and hair straighteners.  Both are, deep down, animated by the notion that white appearances are better than black appearances.

Things are different than people. Skin lighteners and hair straighteners don't answer your objections. They don't pursue you within your family. They don't wake you up at night for prayer vigils, or threaten you if you don't take them.

Again, I am not sure that an outright ban is the thing to do - but we ought to at least acknowledge some measure of difference between inanimate things (homeopathy, crucifix), communities with embedded power relationships, and targets that are vulnerable (minorities).

At least, that is, until we find a cure for conservatism.

This seems similar to the debate over headscarves - in both cases, the objection boiled down to an assertion that in normal cases we trust adults of full capacity to make decisions on behalf of themselves as a matter of their own autonomy - but in this case we ought to make an exception, because we don't trust that these individuals truly have full autonomy; because no matter what they may say, we believe they will be subject to pressure from family, friends or community, which invalidates their ability to give truly free consent.

The irony of course is that everyone, without exception, is subject to these pressures to a greater or lesser extent. No-one has absolute unfettered autonomy. It is true that some people lack full capacity for various reasons - but the tests for removing autonomy from the individual and giving the choice to someone else are, rightly, stringent. If it could be shown this particular individual meets that test, well and good - strip them of the right to make choices on their own behalf. Otherwise - it seems a bad precedent to argue that certain minorities inherently lack the autonomy necessary to make choices on their own behalf. Even conservatives.