[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[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.

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".

If you have to resort to ignoring the cultural context in which an individual lives then I think you have demonstrated the weakness of your position better than I ever could.

[Valmy]

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".

If you have to resort to ignoring the cultural context in which an individual lives then I think you have demonstrated the weakness of your position better than I ever could.

I think you have to ignore the context. Otherwise you are making a claim that individual rights are dependent on what culture you belong to, aren't you?

[Grey Fox]

@ 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?

That's not cosmetic 

[Malthus]

"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.

If you "read the fine print", in the sense of looking to see how "efficacy" is proved, you will see that different Natural Health Products are accepted as efficacious based on policies followed by Health Canada in which the "efficaciousness" of the product is based on ... tradition.

2.5 Traditional Medicines
Products with multiple medicinal ingredients with "traditional use" claims are permitted for assessment as traditional medicines when certain conditions are met:

Evidence should demonstrate "traditional use" of the medicinal ingredients within a single recognized system of traditional medicine (e.g., Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Ethnomedicines of the First Nations, Ayurvedic Medicine, Traditional Herbal Medicine) as a whole formulation; modifications of a classic recipe that would still be accepted within the system of traditional medicine; or as individual medicinal ingredients;

Efficacy should be based on the belief systems, theories, and/or experiences specific to the relevant traditional healing paradigm, not on modern evidence;
All ingredients should be documented medicinal ingredients within the same system of traditional medicine and have been prepared based on a suitable traditional method of preparation utilized for that medicinal ingredient; and

A clear and logical rationale should be provided to support the presence of each medicinal ingredient. Not all ingredients in the formulation need to contribute to the recommended purpose; however, each ingredient should contribute in a logical manner to the overall safety and efficacy of the product within the given traditional system of medicine.

The evidence required:

Efficacy Requirements

Two independent references supporting efficacy based on belief / theories / experiences within a single system of traditional medicine:

- Pre-cleared information for traditional use; or

- Published peer reviewed compilations (e.g., monographs, pharmacopoeias).

Safety Requirements

Two independent references supporting safety based on belief / theories, experiences within a single system of traditional medicine. When scientific evidence suggests a risk, scientific evidence should be provided to substantiate safety- e.g., pre-cleared information, clinical trials, observational studies.

Note: History of use is not an acceptable measure for mitigating potential risk identified in the scientific literature.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/natural-non-prescription/legislation-guidelines/guidance-documents/pathway-licensing-traditional-medicines.html#a2.5

Note how "safety" is handled: if traditionally thought safe based on "beliefs" it is presumptively safe unless scientific evidence suggests otherwise. In reality, there is likely to be no "scientific evidence" either way.

[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".

If you have to resort to ignoring the cultural context in which an individual lives then I think you have demonstrated the weakness of your position better than I ever could.

Already addressed upthread:

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.

Or, what Valmy said. Are we now deciding that people in certain disfavoured religious or cultural minorities ought to presumptively lack autonomy? If so, I would argue the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

[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?

That's not cosmetic 

boobs, hips, nose, lips, etc, etc.

How do you differentiate from cosmetic?

If a teenage girl or a woman says she needs breast implants because her small breasts cause her psychological discomfort, is that cosmetic or otherwise?  How is that different than a transwoman requiring breast implants?

[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.

If you "read the fine print", in the sense of looking to see how "efficacy" is proved, you will see that different Natural Health Products are accepted as efficacious based on policies followed by Health Canada in which the "efficaciousness" of the product is based on ... tradition.

2.5 Traditional Medicines
Products with multiple medicinal ingredients with "traditional use" claims are permitted for assessment as traditional medicines when certain conditions are met:

Evidence should demonstrate "traditional use" of the medicinal ingredients within a single recognized system of traditional medicine (e.g., Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Ethnomedicines of the First Nations, Ayurvedic Medicine, Traditional Herbal Medicine) as a whole formulation; modifications of a classic recipe that would still be accepted within the system of traditional medicine; or as individual medicinal ingredients;

Efficacy should be based on the belief systems, theories, and/or experiences specific to the relevant traditional healing paradigm, not on modern evidence;
All ingredients should be documented medicinal ingredients within the same system of traditional medicine and have been prepared based on a suitable traditional method of preparation utilized for that medicinal ingredient; and

A clear and logical rationale should be provided to support the presence of each medicinal ingredient. Not all ingredients in the formulation need to contribute to the recommended purpose; however, each ingredient should contribute in a logical manner to the overall safety and efficacy of the product within the given traditional system of medicine.

The evidence required:

Efficacy Requirements

Two independent references supporting efficacy based on belief / theories / experiences within a single system of traditional medicine:

- Pre-cleared information for traditional use; or

- Published peer reviewed compilations (e.g., monographs, pharmacopoeias).

Safety Requirements

Two independent references supporting safety based on belief / theories, experiences within a single system of traditional medicine. When scientific evidence suggests a risk, scientific evidence should be provided to substantiate safety- e.g., pre-cleared information, clinical trials, observational studies.

Note: History of use is not an acceptable measure for mitigating potential risk identified in the scientific literature.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/natural-non-prescription/legislation-guidelines/guidance-documents/pathway-licensing-traditional-medicines.html#a2.5

Note how "safety" is handled: if traditionally thought safe based on "beliefs" it is presumptively safe unless scientific evidence suggests otherwise. In reality, there is likely to be no "scientific evidence" either way.

I really thought the safety part was evaluated, at least...
No wonder there's so much pressure on Health Canada to revise their stance...

[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.

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".

If you have to resort to ignoring the cultural context in which an individual lives then I think you have demonstrated the weakness of your position better than I ever could.

I think you have to ignore the context. Otherwise you are making a claim that individual rights are dependent on what culture you belong to, aren't you?

And you are ignoring the reasons the "choice" is being made

[Malthus]

I really thought the safety part was evaluated, at least...
No wonder there's so much pressure on Health Canada to revise their stance...

That's exactly the point - an intelligent observer such as yourself (  ) who is not familiar with the relevant Health Canada guidance documents (and who would be, other than specialists working in the regulatory field?) would, quite naturally and reasonably, assume that a product given a licence by Health Canada was both "safe" and "efficacious" - because that's the test Health Canada usually employs with drugs. It's also the claim Health Canada makes on its website.

A licence is widely seen as a stamp of official approval, that the product will do what it is claimed to do and be reasonably safe in doing it, based on the science.

However, while Health Canada retains all the external appearances of running such a system when it comes to these "traditional natural health products", in fact the system is totally different: Health Canada is really just concerned to keep the stuff known for a fact to be poisonous off the shelves, and otherwise lets each "tradition" whose adherents have enough political clout (Chinese, Indian, Homeopathy, etc.) rule itself.

The overall effect is to give this stuff more legitimacy.

The argument for the current system is that outlawing this stuff will not stop it, just drive it underground, and so public health is better served by allowing it to be sold and at least regulating it somewhat - keeping the really poisonous stuff out. Also, that the communities that believe in this stuff will just feel persecuted if their beliefs are publicly branded as fraudulent. That has some force to it I suppose. Note the same argument can be made for any quack or fraudulent practice ... such as "conversion therapy".

[Valmy]

And you are ignoring the reasons the "choice" is being made

Evidence I am ignoring them? I have stated them and stated my encouragement for countering the type of poisonous ideology that leads to those reasons.

[crazy canuck]

And you are ignoring the reasons the "choice" is being made

Evidence I am ignoring them? I have stated them and stated my encouragement for countering the type of poisonous ideology that leads to those reasons.

The post I was responding to and which had imbedded within it the discussion Malthus and I were having.  Ironically the context that I was referring to


Edit: actually, went back and read the posts.  My criticism is much more validly directed at Malthus.  Not you.

[Malthus]

And you are ignoring the reasons the "choice" is being made

Evidence I am ignoring them? I have stated them and stated my encouragement for countering the type of poisonous ideology that leads to those reasons.

The post I was responding to and which had imbedded within it the discussion Malthus and I were having.  Ironically the context that I was referring to


Edit: actually, went back and read the posts.  My criticism is much more validly directed at Malthus.  Not you.

Valmy and I are making more or less the same argument ... 

Neither of us are "ignoring" the reasons such choices are made.

However, the fact that an adult may be influenced by an ideology we find vile isn't a good reason to strip them of autonomy - because doing so leads to worse problems.

[crazy canuck]

And you are ignoring the reasons the "choice" is being made

Evidence I am ignoring them? I have stated them and stated my encouragement for countering the type of poisonous ideology that leads to those reasons.

The post I was responding to and which had imbedded within it the discussion Malthus and I were having.  Ironically the context that I was referring to


Edit: actually, went back and read the posts.  My criticism is much more validly directed at Malthus.  Not you.

Valmy and I are making more or less the same argument ... 

Neither of us are "ignoring" the reasons such choices are made.

However, the fact that an adult may be influenced by an ideology we find vile isn't a good reason to strip them of autonomy - because doing so leads to worse problems.

On second thought, you are correct, you are both being willfully blind 

[Valmy]

On second thought, you are correct, you are both being willfully blind 

Look I am just not in the business of persecuting people because of their religion or identity or ideology if they are not harming anybody else. Even with the best of intentions that tends to go poorly.

[Grey Fox]

They are actively working towards harming the LGBTQ+ community. Preemptive strikes is all we got.