[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

The question is, if you have a willing patient and a willing 'therapist', should there be a criminal ban on so-called conversion therapy?

The delicate issue here is how "willing" are those patients who are already placed in a position of vulnerability.

Which is why governments must offer resources in school, and to the general public, for young (and less young) LGBTQ people.

how willing is an adult Jehova's Witness refusing a blood transfusion?
how willing is a muslim construction worker refusing water or food during the Ramadan, even if he's working outside during a warm day?
how willing is a Sikh refusing to wear a protective helmet on his motorcycle?  should the State act to protect such people against their religious zeal?

there are limits as to how we can rule in the private lives of individuals.

[Valmy]

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.

I am sorry to hear that. The LDS church is indeed a destructive cult that has a huge amount of wealth and political power over here.

[Oexmelin]

I am sorry to hear that. The LDS church is indeed a destructive cult that has a huge amount of wealth and political power over here.

At the very least, there is now a reformist movement within it, which exerts pressures upon its hierarchy.

I am now much more exposed to the evangelical brand of hate. And these people seem to have an endless supply of hate. Assorted islamophobes who like to mock "the religion of peace" should take a long, hard look into their own "religion of love".

[viper37]

If the "therapy" is ineffective, yet has some adverse effects, it by definition does more harm than good and so prohibiting it is justified.

Vitamin C injections for cancer patients.
Many patients claim these injections lessen the adverse effects of chemiotherapy.  The Ontario government even pays for it.  Quebec government does not pay, but does not ban it.
Scientific literature has found no evidence it lessens adverse chemiotherapy effects.  It has found limited evidence it can be actively nocive in that it reduces the positive effects of chemiotherapy.
Should the Ontario government stop funding and ban such alternative treatments?

The real scandal is that so much else ought to fall within the same category - much so-called "alternative medicine" is ineffective and has some adverse effects, and so also ought to be prohibited.

Yet our government licences many such products rather than prohibiting them.

Ah, no, not in Canada.  Health Canada does not "licence" any alternative health product, but there are still 2 levels of authorization required for meds.  You can market your alternative medication with only the 1st level: scientifically prove it is not harmful to humans.
Step 2 for behind the counter meds will require the licensee to prove it really helps with what it is supposed to cure.  Even then, lots of lobbying to pharmacists or doctors can occur to replace one med with another.  I do not know if over the counter meds like Tylenol, Advil, etc, also needs step 2.  I think so, but I'm not sure.  All I know is "natural health products" are only required to prove they're not harmful.

Take Vitamin C.  Everyone needs vitamin c.  Do we need to buy it in pills?  Most of us, no.  But they're still sold by the fuckton...

The Canadian position on these makes literally no sense: Health Canada, the regulatory agency, licences them as "natural health products", but also insists they aren't an alternative to real vaccines. If so, why licence them? 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-homeopathy-vaccine-hesitancy-1.5058393

It's all crazy.

[Valmy]

I am now much more exposed to the evangelical brand of hate. And these people seem to have an endless supply of hate.

There is a certain bunker mentality that certain brands of Christianity indulge in where they sit in judgement of the evil world that is always trying to destroy them. The Us vs. them mentality is quite worrisome.

But that is nothing new. I hope you are right that these groups are feeling pressure to reform but we have held out that hope before.

Assorted islamophobes who like to mock "the religion of peace" should take a long, hard look into their own "religion of love".

Oh wow what an original take. I am not sure what one has to do with the other.

[viper37]

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

than by the logic, we must go to the source: ban the religion/sect that teaches that.  They likely teach all other kinds of nasty things to, like having women veiled at all times outside of the house, wearing a kipah at all times, keeping a huge beard, dressing in black during hot summer days, etc, etc,

Heck, I'm pretty sure there are crazies out there banning pork consumption!  Can you imagine a life without bacon??      How terrible it must be for these kids!

I'd say the government has the right to determine how people act within its sphere, like what people do or not dot while being employed by a government institution.  Outside of that, I'm worried we open a can of worms, as I outline above, there are lots, lots and lots of nocive behaviours taught by many religions & sects.  Anti-gay stance is only one of them.

The Libs are only trying their hands at wedge politics.  They never cared about religious extremists when they're voting for them.

[viper37]

@ CC Why are you up @ 5 am & already busy?!

The difference of course is that a lot of people find it obnoxious that "being gay" is being labelled as something undesirable (hence requiring "therapy"). This objection is reasonable - however, if someone is distressed about being gay and wants to change it, that's their business (assuming they are an adult). Point is the alleged treatment is fraudulent, in that it doesn't actually "work".

That is the significant difference.  BB's logic only works if being gay is like some other medical condition that cannot be treated effectively with alternative treatment.  If someone is distressed about being gay it is probably because they live in a community that thinks there is something wrong with them and they just need to seek treatment.  It is not just that the treatment is a fraud, it is also based on a destructive assumption.

Lots of people have destructive assumptions about themselves though.  That they're not good enough, or smart enough, or pretty enough.

We don't ban cosmetic surgery just because someone thinking they don't look good enough is a "destructive assumption".

Maybe we should. It is an unnecessary drain of healthcare ressources, even if it is private.

do you suffer from transphobia?

[Oexmelin]

Oh wow what an original take. I am not sure what one has to do with the other.

It has to do with the fact that a lot of the sneering done against islam by conservative christians should be turned towards a little more introspection. But, as you note, it would detract from the besieged mentality they get so much mileage from. If you haven't, I suggest doing a little volunteering work at the local Planned Parenthood - if there is still one in your vicinity. I never recognize from these howling crazies any of the Christianity I grew up with.

[Barrister]

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.

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

Living through Trump, and Brexit, and some of the other nationalist parties surging across the west, has forced some thinking conservatives to realize with dismay that there really was a lot more nativism and xenophobia in our midst then re ever realized.

However there are some bright lights as a number of people who continue to identify as right wing continue to reject those sentiments.  Conservatism is not inherently an intolerant movement.

So we should always be willing to ask "are we the baddies".  And, with respect, although this drive is partially from good intentions (with a side of using it as a political wedge issue), I will humbly suggest that the Liberals are in fact the "baddies" on this issue.  A ban on "conversion therapy" is a very clear infringement on a person's freedom of expression.  There's no pressing public policy issue at play - we have no evidence that any conversion therapies are being performed in Canada.

I'm very sad to hear about  your friend, Oex, but I would note you said it happened "many years" ago.  WHen it comes to gay rights, we have come a long, long way in a short period of time.  Even the LDS Church (of which I am no expert, but I can use google) within the last few years now teaches that homosexuality is not a choice and does not condone conversion therapy.

[viper37]

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.

the examples chosen aren't that bad.
If someone lives in an ultra liberal environment and decides at 8 year old that he isn't a boy but is a girl instead.  Should the State intervenes one way or another?

If that boy was raised in an ultra conservative environment, should the State intervene to let him live as a girl, dress as a girl, wear makeup, take hormones once he reaches teenage years?  Have him follow through with gender reassignment surgery if he wishes so?

With my first analogy, in an ultra liberal environment, should the State intervene to protect the boy until he is older and able to make a sound choice on his lifestyle and own medical treatments?  After all, we wouldn't let an 8 year old boy decide for himself about lots of things.  Lots of 8 year old boys wouldn't attend school if they weren't forced by the State.  And many parents would not let their teenage sons go to school - a waste of time - and have them work instead.  My aunt was never in favour of my cousin going to college, high school was good enough and he had a job in our company, at minimum wage.  Good enough.  (fortunately, I did have some pull over him and he went to university).
Where is the line drawn?  Why stop at gay conversion therapy?  Why not forbid the burqa and other such full face veils? Heck, Tunisia did it, and other muslim countries too.  Why not forbid 100% private&religious schools that do not follow the State curriculum?  There was a huge debate over that, and Quebec was again singled out as a racist State for insisting boys be thought something else than prayers...

[viper37]

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".

Or I do not wish to work for a black man, or a white man, or a woman.  That is a personal choice, to discriminate against yourself.

[viper37]

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.

you could be shun from your family if, as a black man, you decide to become white, or look like a white man/woman.

[Oexmelin]

A ban on "conversion therapy" is a very clear infringement on a person's freedom of expression.  There's no pressing public policy issue at play - we have no evidence that any conversion therapies are being performed in Canada.

I'm very sad to hear about  your friend, Oex, but I would note you said it happened "many years" ago.  WHen it comes to gay rights, we have come a long, long way in a short period of time.

I understand all that. There is certainly quite a difference between Utah now and Utah then. But there is also a world of difference between Utah now, or rural Alberta, and Montreal or Toronto. I offered my sliver of personal story to explain why my own tolerance of such hateful BS is low. As I have repeatedly said, I don't think such a ban, albeit desirable, outweighs the consequences of the infringement. I just think that comparisons to inanimate things have clear heuristic limits, and that we could use that opportunity to think about what this means. I also think it's an opportunity to think about what sort of polity we want: i.e., we teach mandatory science regardless of what people think about homeopathy, because we think a greater good is served that way. We should, I believe, make sure we offer good counseling in school for people who are coming to terms with their sexuality, regardless of what people think about sex. I believe on this matter, Conservatives have been a lot more willing to leave matters ambiguous for the benefit of some of their constituencies.

On the more narrowly political angle of this, I am more and more concerned that (English-language) political life in Canada is being colonized by American politics, American issues, and things which arrest the attention of American media. Whether or not conversion therapy is practiced in Canada (and I have no doubt it is), its existence as an issue is amply informed by American political discourse. It used to be that such things were mediated by Canadian journalists. Now, they are just accessible in their raw form for media, citizens, and politicians. This worries me.

[Malthus]

Ah, no, not in Canada.  Health Canada does not "licence" any alternative health product, but there are still 2 levels of authorization required for meds.  You can market your alternative medication with only the 1st level: scientifically prove it is not harmful to humans.

Oh yes they do ... "Natural Health Products".

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/natural-non-prescription/applications-submissions/product-licensing/licensed-natural-health-products-database.html

What Is It?
The Licensed Natural Health Products Database contains information about natural health products that have been issued a product licence by Health Canada.

Products with a licence have been assessed by Health Canada and found to be safe, effective and of high quality under their recommended conditions of use. You can identify licensed natural health products by looking for the eight-digit Natural Product Number (NPN) or Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM) on the label.

This Licensed Natural Health Products Database is managed by Health Canada and includes information on licensed natural health products, including:

vitamin and mineral supplements
herb and plant-based remedies
traditional medicines like Traditional Chinese Medicines or Ayurvedic (Indian) Medicines
omega 3 and essential fatty acids
probiotics
homeopathic medicines
many everyday consumer products, like certain toothpastes, antiperspirants, shampoos, facial products and mouthwashes

Note the phrase "Products with a licence have been assessed by Health Canada and found to be safe, effective and of high quality under their recommended conditions of use."

By granting a licence, Health Canada states on its own website that it has assessed the product and has determined it is "effective". Such products explicitly include:

herb and plant-based remedies
traditional medicines like Traditional Chinese Medicines or Ayurvedic (Indian) Medicines
homeopathic medicines

Many of these make health claims based on magic, not science. No doubt some traditional Chinese or Ayurvedic (Indian) Medicines are "effective", but many are not; all homeopathic "medicines" are, by definition, placebos at best.

[viper37]

"under their recommended conditions of use"

Key phrase here.

You have to read the fine prints.  It says the same about shampoo and toothpaste.  Does one shampoo really helps regrow hair?  Ah, it does not say so on the back label...  It says it will help rejuvenate your scalp and densify your (remaining) hair, not helping you regrow hair (though for a guy my age, that's enough ), even if the front label hints at that.
Omega 3 and vitamins will partially help if you are unable to have an equilibrated diet.  It says so on the label, you got to maintain a good diet...

I saw "weight reducing pill".  They are advertised as working, combined with an healthy diet and a regular weight loss program supervised by a physical trainer or physiotherapist...  And that is true, it does work under those conditions!!
I'm told Health Canada should soon revise its labels.  And some drugstores in Quebec have begun labelling their "natural products" sections with warning signs that their efficacity has not been scientifically proven.