An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Referring to people in a way that is respectful to them, is common sense and civil and decent and reasonable.  

I quite agree.  I think "same-sex attraction" is respectful.  GLAAD uses the term.  So does the APA.  So does the New York Times.  And the LA Times.  And numerous federal judges in formal, published opinions.

Thanks,

-Smac

This means we also need to adjust the words we use for the audience we are speaking to in order to maintain respect.  If those groups that you claim use this term, change and stop using the term and communicate to you how they would prefer to be referred to, will you also adjust accordingly?  

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That you regard a simple request for courtesy to be akin to thought control and tyranny tells me it would be unwise to continue this discussion. 

And for the record, "Mormons and Catholics use it!" has never been one of my arguments. It's how they use it that matters. I resent the implication that I'm a religious bigot because I don't like the way a term is used ideologically. 

So how do most Mormons and Catholics use the term other than to mean sexually attracted to one or more persons of the same sex as one’s own? Seems pretty value-neutral to me. If there is a weaponization of the term here, I fail to discern it. 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This means we also need to adjust the words we use for the audience we are speaking to in order to maintain respect.  If those groups that you claim use this term, change and stop using the term and communicate to you how they would prefer to be referred to, will you also adjust accordingly?  

If the terms are used in a context of love and are mutually and empathetically understood, I think there is freedom for all involved to use either term.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

If the terms are used in a context of love and are mutually and empathetically understood, I think there is freedom for all involved to use either term.

Or even if they are used in a context of mutual respect. Automatically imputing disrespect to another just because he uses a value-neutral term that one doesn’t like does not strike me as very respectful. 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So how do most Mormons and Catholics use the term other than to mean sexually attracted to one or more persons of the same sex as one’s own? Seems pretty value-neutral to me. If there is a weaponization of the term here, I fail to discern it. 

I'm not talking about "most." I'm talking about the way it is used by people with a certain ideological perspective. Do I think most Mormons and Catholics share that perspective? No, I do not. I've explained what I was talking about and gave examples. 

Again, this is pointless. I've said why I don't like that label. That you and smac seem to think I'm some sort of radical queer activist "weaponizing" words is absurd and tells me I should have stayed out of this discussion, as is my usual practice. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by jkwilliams

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If the terms are used in a context of love and are mutually and empathetically understood, I think there is freedom for all involved to use either term.

When someone communicates what term they would preferred to be called, how can the other person intentionally use a different term that goes against what was requested, and consider that usage "in a context of love"?  Thats not love.  Thats disrespect and blatant dismal of the wishes of the other person.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I'm not talking about "most." I'm talking about the way it is used by people with a certain ideological perspective. Do I think most Mormons and Catholics share that perspective? No, I do not. I've explained what I was talking about and gave examples. 

Again, this is pointless. I've said why I don't like that label and why. That you and smac seem to think I'm some sort of radical queer activist "weaponizing" words is absurd and tells me I should have stayed out of this discussion, as is my usual practice. 

I don’t think you’re a “radical, queer activist.” I just think you are misguided in the vehemence of your hostility toward the use of a reasonably serviceable term. In fact, up to this moment I didn’t even know you were gay, and I’m not even sure of it now. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That you regard a simple request for courtesy to be akin to thought control and tyranny tells me it would be unwise to continue this discussion. 

I think the use of non-gendered pronouns probably started out as "a simple request" too.  But then it became something stronger.  A "preference," perhaps.  Then it gained traction in academia and government.  And now it's a hate crime in Canada to not use them.  See, e.g.,

• here ("CANADIANS COULD FACE HATE CRIMES OVER USING THE WRONG GENDER PRONOUNS");
• here ("Canada’s new human rights law: use trans pronouns or else / Few Canadians realize how seriously their new anti-discrimination statutes infringe upon freedom of speech"); and
• here ("ORWELLIAN: Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns").

I think this article by Jordan Peterson is compelling:

Quote

Two weeks ago I posted three YouTube videos about legislative threats to Canadian freedom of speech. I singled out Canada’s Federal Bill C-16, which adds legal protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal code.

I noted that the policy statements surrounding similar legislation — most particularly those on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website — were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

These videos attracted a disproportionate amount of attention — online, in the Canadian national media, and beyond. A demonstration at the University of Toronto protested my statements. Another was held in support of free speech. The latter was met by counter-demonstrators who drowned out the speakers with white noise and assaulted a young female journalist — an act now viewed by half a million people on YouTube overall:

 

If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.

Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).

So first Canada.  Now New York City.  I think this sort of absurdity will spread.

Tyranny.  That's all it is.

Quote

I have been taken to task for my refusal to abide by the wishes of those demanding such changes to my speech. What are my reasons?

First, most simply, are the practical problems. The Big Apple now legally protects a non-exhaustive list of 31 gender identities.

Facebook offers a choice of 58. Is that not the instant reductio ad absurdum of the gender extremists’ claims? Are the denizens of New York now legally required to employ a new pronoun for each of these many identities? How are they supposed to keep track of who’s who? And who is going to distinguish between mistakes and criminal action or intent?

It also turns out that pronouns are not so easy to change — particularly by fiat — because they are part of a “closed linguistic category” resistant to alteration.

Second, more complexly, are the political issues. “Gender-neutral” pronouns are part of the “PC Game.” Here’s how you play:  

Quote

 

First, you identify a domain of human endeavor. It could be the wealth of people within a society. It could be the psychological well-being of individuals within a given organization. It could be the prowess of school children at a particular sport.

Second, you note the inevitable continuum of success. Some people are richer or happier than others. Some children are better at playing volleyball.

Third, you define those doing comparatively better as oppressors of those doing comparatively worse.

Fourth, and finally, you declare solidarity with the latter, and enmity for the former (now all-too-convenient targets for your resentment and hatred).

 

You have now established your moral superiority, cost-free, and can trumpet it at will.

I see similar nascent efforts as pertaining to coercing the public into using particular forms of vocabulary, and using the government to destroy your life if you do not.

This farce is already playing out in Canada and New York.  We'd be stupid to think it won't be deployed in other places and in other ways.

Quote

Words such as zie and hir, are also, in my opinion, moves in the PC game. It’s not a game I wish to play. We shouldn’t reduce complex, uncertain issues to a one-size-fits-all formula. Instead, we should think things through carefully, using words of our own choice. It’s a free speech issue, in its essence.

Yep.

The same can be said for innocuous, clinical and value-neutral terms like "same-sex attraction."

Quote

People often defend freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens must retain the right to criticize their leaders. That’s true, but it’s not the fundamental truth.

Freedom of speech protects our societies from shipwreck on the Scylla of tyranny and the Charybdis of nihilism and despair. Freedom of speech allows us to identify the problems that beset us. Freedom of speech allows us to formulate solutions to those problems, and to reach consensus on the solutions.

There is nothing in the absence of freedom of speech but tyranny and slavery.

Tyranny and slavery.

If you doubt it, go to New York and Canada and use "he" or "she" and see how things turn out.  In Canada, the only thing you risk is . . . a life-destroying fine of $250,000.

Quote

To identify problems, solve them, and reach consensus, we have to do it foolishly. We have to mis-speak, and over-react, and engage badly in intense verbal conflict. We have to be tested and corrected by others. All of that requires legal protection.

People become upset by differences of opinion, and want them suppressed. And it’s no wonder. But the alternative is worse.

Without free speech, we cannot explore our ever-transforming territories, orient ourselves, and get to the point. Without freedom of speech, we will not talk — and we will not think. And then we will have real conflict, with all of its horrors, instead of its abstracted equivalent.

"People become upset by differences of opinion, and want them suppressed."

Yep.  Suppression through controlling vocabulary, and punishing anyone who dissents.

We're not yet as in much danger as Jordan Peterson.  But I think it's just a matter of time.

Quote

Bill C-16, and its legislative sisters, are particularly insidious constructions.

Free speech is so fundamentally important that restricting it in any manner carries serious risk. Nonetheless, we shouldn’t be allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Sensible people can also debate the control of hatred (although hate speech laws present a significant danger themselves).

There is, however, a crucial difference between laws that stop people from saying arguably dangerous words and laws that mandate the use of politically-approved words and phrases. We have never had laws of the latter sort before, not in our countries. This is no time to start.

So, a note from a Canadian friend. The citizens of your great country, and ours — and of our allies across the Western world — are at risk.

I think Jordan Peterson is right.  We are at risk.

Quote

Careless, ideologically-addled legislators are forcing us to use words we did not freely choose. We have to draw a line in the sand. That’s why people are watching. It’s a vitally important issue. We cannot afford to get it wrong.

Quite so.

Quote

And for the record, "Mormons and Catholics use it!" has never been one of my arguments.

You said: "As I said, I dislike 'same-sex attraction' because I usually see it from religious folks trying to say it’s not who I am but some kind of affliction to be endured. To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO" (emphasis added). 

You later characterized these religious folks as having "people with an agenda" who have "co-opted" the term "same-sex attraction."

You later stated, sarcastically, that "it’s mere coincidence that almost every reference you find in a Google search is a conservative religious post arguing that it’s a condition."

"Religious folks trying to say..."  "People with an agenda."

Quote

It's how they use it that matters.

Oh, brother.  You are asking that the term not be used at all.  

You haven't said that you dislike how it is used.  You said: "I’ve explained repeatedly why I dislike the label 'same-sex attraction.'"

You said: "You're quite free to use whatever terms you wish, but you have to understand that those of us who are the subjects and objects of that term would prefer you not use it for the reasons I and others have said."  (Emphasis added.)

You said: "I'm simply letting you know that the term has become loaded and I'd prefer you not use it."  (Emphasis added.)

You said: "No one elected me, and I'm not a spokesman for a consensus, but of the very few LGBT+ people on this board, it's safe to say most of us would prefer people not use that term, so if you're going to communicate with LGBT+ members of this board, it might be wise to avoid that term, at least here on the board."  (Emphases added.)

You want an across-the-board avoidance of "same-sex attraction."  Nothing about "how" it is used.  You don't want it used at all.

And what's worse, you are targeting Mormons for this.  Even if we use this term in the same respectful and clinical ways as it has been used by GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, etc., you categorically do not want Mormons to use the term.  At all.  "How" we use it isn't part of the equation.

Can you see the problem with that?

Quote

I resent the implication that I'm a religious bigot because I don't like the way a term is used ideologically. 

I did not imply that.

My comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This means we also need to adjust the words we use for the audience we are speaking to in order to maintain respect.  If those groups that you claim use this term, change and stop using the term and communicate to you how they would prefer to be referred to, will you also adjust accordingly?  

What is our audience on this message board? Seems to me it goes far beyond the relative few who have unilaterally decreed that “same-sex attraction” is a taboo expression. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think you’re a “radical, queer activist.” I just think you are misguided in the vehemence of your hostility toward the use of a reasonably serviceable term. In fact, up to this moment I didn’t even know you were gay, and I’m not even sure of it now. 

I'm not gay. I've already discussed my sexual orientation and don't feel the need to repeat it, lest I get another crack about having a "crush" on someone.

I do not have any hostility toward the use of that term, vehement or otherwise. I have said repeatedly that, from my perspective, the term has been used to suggest that people like me have a "condition" or "affliction," usually in the context of something we have to endure or suffer or struggle to overcome. That's what it connotes to me, and clearly, I'm not alone. But recognizing that a term is no longer neutral does not reflect hostility, just a preference. You and smac are the ones going on about tyranny and thought control  and weaponization. I'm just telling you my preference and why I have that preference. 

Again, this is a pointless conversation from my perspective. Carry on.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the use of non-gendered pronouns probably started out as "a simple request" too.  But then it became something stronger.  A "preference," perhaps.  Then it gained traction in academia and government.  And now it's a hate crime in Canada to not use them.  See, e.g.,

• here ("CANADIANS COULD FACE HATE CRIMES OVER USING THE WRONG GENDER PRONOUNS");
• here ("Canada’s new human rights law: use trans pronouns or else / Few Canadians realize how seriously their new anti-discrimination statutes infringe upon freedom of speech"); and
• here ("ORWELLIAN: Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns").

 

If you keep getting your news from extremist sources seeking to stoke your outrage, you'll be continually outraged. And of course outrage drives readership, which drives advertising clicks.

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not gay. I've already discussed my sexual orientation and don't feel the need to repeat it, lest I get another crack about having a "crush" on someone.

I do not have any hostility toward the use of that term, vehement or otherwise. I have said repeatedly that, from my perspective, the term has been used to suggest that people like me have a "condition" or "affliction," usually in the context of something we have to endure or suffer or struggle to overcome. That's what it connotes to me, and clearly, I'm not alone. But recognizing that a term is no longer neutral does not reflect hostility, just a preference. You and smac are the ones going on about tyranny and thought control  and weaponization. I'm just telling you my preference and why I have that preference. 

Again, this is a pointless conversation from my perspective. Carry on.

So I’m still confused. You say you are not gay and in the same paragraph use the phrase “people like me.” I guess I don’t understand what you mean by that. 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the use of non-gendered pronouns probably started out as "a simple request" too.  But then it became something stronger.  A "preference," perhaps.  Then it gained traction in academia and government.  And now it's a hate crime in Canada to not use them.  See, e.g.,

• here ("CANADIANS COULD FACE HATE CRIMES OVER USING THE WRONG GENDER PRONOUNS");
• here ("Canada’s new human rights law: use trans pronouns or else / Few Canadians realize how seriously their new anti-discrimination statutes infringe upon freedom of speech"); and
• here ("ORWELLIAN: Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns").

I think this article by Jordan Peterson is compelling:

So first Canada.  Now New York City.  I think this sort of absurdity will spread.

Tyranny.  That's all it is.

I see similar nascent efforts as pertaining to coercing the public into using particular forms of vocabulary, and using the government to destroy your life if you do not.

This farce is already playing out in Canada and New York.  We'd be stupid to think it won't be deployed in other places and in other ways.

Yep.

The same can be said for innocuous, clinical and value-neutral terms like "same-sex attraction."

Tyranny and slavery.

If you doubt it, go to New York and Canada and use "he" or "she" and see how things turn out.  In Canada, the only thing you risk is . . . a life-destroying fine of $250,000.

"People become upset by differences of opinion, and want them suppressed."

Yep.  Suppression through controlling vocabulary, and punishing anyone who dissents.

We're not yet as in much danger as Jordan Peterson.  But I think it's just a matter of time.

I think Jordan Peterson is right.  We are at risk.

Quite so.

You said: "As I said, I dislike 'same-sex attraction' because I usually see it from religious folks trying to say it’s not who I am but some kind of affliction to be endured. To me it isn’t value-neutral at all. It doesn’t offend me, but it carries a lot of baggage, IMO" (emphasis added). 

You later characterized these religious folks as having "people with an agenda" who have "co-opted" the term "same-sex attraction."

You later stated, sarcastically, that "it’s mere coincidence that almost every reference you find in a Google search is a conservative religious post arguing that it’s a condition."

"Religious folks trying to say..."  "People with an agenda."

Oh, brother.  You are asking that the term not be used at all.  

You haven't said that you dislike how it is used.  You said: "I’ve explained repeatedly why I dislike the label 'same-sex attraction.'"

You said: "You're quite free to use whatever terms you wish, but you have to understand that those of us who are the subjects and objects of that term would prefer you not use it for the reasons I and others have said."  (Emphasis added.)

You said: "I'm simply letting you know that the term has become loaded and I'd prefer you not use it."  (Emphasis added.)

You said: "No one elected me, and I'm not a spokesman for a consensus, but of the very few LGBT+ people on this board, it's safe to say most of us would prefer people not use that term, so if you're going to communicate with LGBT+ members of this board, it might be wise to avoid that term, at least here on the board."  (Emphases added.)

You want an across-the-board avoidance of "same-sex attraction."  Nothing about "how" it is used.  You don't want it used at all.

And what's worse, you are targeting Mormons for this.  Even if we use this term in the same respectful and clinical ways as it has been used by GLAAD, the APA, federal judges, etc., you categorically do not want Mormons to use the term.  At all.  "How" we use it isn't part of the equation.

Can you see the problem with that?

I did not imply that.

My comments are not focused solely on you.  I am addressing the broader societal problem that you happen to be raising.

Thanks,

-Smac

Slippery slope fallacies aside, I've simply said I don't like a certain phrase. I don't. Sue me. You can choose to ignore my request without lumping me in with thought-controlling, tyrannical radicals. 

And, no, I am not targeting Mormons or anyone else. Don't be absurd.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So I’m still confused. You say you are not gay and I’m the same paragraph use the phrase “people like me.” I guess I don’t understand what you mean by that. 

From your perspective, is someone who suffers/struggles with/experiences "same-sex attraction" necessarily gay? Like I said, I've preferred to keep my sexual orientation private, and given some of the responses I've received, I should have kept it that way. Big mistake being open about it here. 

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

I quite agree.  I think "same-sex attraction" is respectful.  GLAAD uses the term.  So does the APA.  So does the New York Times.  And the LA Times.  And numerous federal judges in formal, published opinions.

Thanks,

-Smac

This means we also need to adjust the words we use for the audience we are speaking to in order to maintain respect. 

Not necessarily.

If my "audience" is someone making unreasonable demands as to my choice of words, I will not capitulate.

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If those groups that you claim use this term, change and stop using the term and communicate to you how they would prefer to be referred to, will you also adjust accordingly?  

I doubt it.  The cat is already out of the bag.  If those groups stop using "same-sex attraction," it will be from coercion and threats and agenda-driven demands.  It won't be by reasoned and reasonable argument and persuasion.  That's my guess.

Thanks,

-SMac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is our audience on this message board? Seems to me it goes far beyond the relative few who have unilaterally decreed that “same-sex attraction” is a taboo expression. 

But, it seems, only when members of the Church use it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But, it seems, only when members of the Church use it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. 

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Please stop misrepresenting what I said. 

Well, speaking of misrepresenting. . . Has anyone here said that they will or intend to refer to LGBT+ individuals as SSA? 

Because that's not how I read Scott or Smac.  I head them saying that completely avoiding the term same-sex attraction to describe feelings of attraction is unreasonable. I fully agree. 

Again, refusing to use gay or lesbian or LGBT, to refer to a specific individual when they have asked is disrespectful. But I'm not seeing anyone do that!

I am seeing people tell them not to use the term at all. In ways that totally invalidate and even erase the existence of bisexuality and other parts of the non-heterosexual spectrum. I do see that as trying to control language in ways that only allows a particular ideology to be legitimate. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, kllindley said:

Well, speaking of misrepresenting. . . Has anyone here said that they will or intend to refer to LGBT+ individuals as SSA? 

Because that's not how I read Scott or Smac.  I head them saying that completely avoiding the term same-sex attraction to describe feelings of attraction is unreasonable. I fully agree. 

Again, refusing to use gay or lesbian or LGBT, to refer to a specific individual when they have asked is disrespectful. But I'm not seeing anyone do that!

I am seeing people tell them not to use the term at all. In ways that totally invalidate and even erase the existence of bisexuality and other parts of the non-heterosexual spectrum. I do see that as trying to control language in ways that only allows a particular ideology to be legitimate. 

So, you see my simple request as a way of invalidating myself? 😨

I'm not telling people "not to use the term at all." I'm asking people to stop using it to refer to LGBT+ people. The way I'm reading smac and Scott is that they don't want to use the terms gay, lesbian, bisexual, LGBT+, etc., but are insisting that saying I have "same-sex attraction" is the acceptable, value-neutral way of describing me. If I'm misreading them, I'm sorry. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you keep getting your news from extremist sources seeking to stoke your outrage, you'll be continually outraged. And of course outrage drives readership, which drives advertising clicks.

I got those from Google.

News items on C-16 have been curiously circumspect about the actual ramifications of the law.  It seems pretty clear, however, that fines and "training" (re-education, really) are possible punishments for not using a preferred pronoun (see, here and here).

Here's an interesting legal assessment of the bill:

Quote

The Minister of Justice has summarized Bill C-16 as follows:

“This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.”

Adding the concepts of gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code proposed by the enactment appears fairly innocuous and perhaps commendable.

A deeper analysis of the concepts and the origins of the legislation, however, make clear that this legislation may be an unprecedented infringement on freedom of expression, and the principle that Canadians ought to be free from having to mouth opinions and ideologies that are not their own.

HOW DOES BILL C-16 GET US TO COMPELLED SPEECH?

The origins of Bill C-16 can be found in identical legislation that was introduced in certain Provinces including Ontario in or around 2012.  The Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) was amended in an identical fashion and with the same words (to include gender identity and gender expression as protected grounds from discrimination).

In Ontario, the human rights regime is comprised of the Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “OHRC”), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “OHRT”).

The Code is the legislation that creates the regime and the law.

The OHRC is the government agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the Code.

The OHRT is the government tribunal charged with determining if there has been a breach of the Code and in fashioning remedies for any breach.

The OHRC and OHRT are accountable to the legislature of Ontario.

In the event there is a breach of the Code, a complainant can commence a complaint before the Tribunal to have the complaint adjudicated.

Alternatively, the OHRC can commence a complaint before the Tribunal.

The OHRC can also intervene in any existing complaint before the Tribunal on behalf of any complainant.

The OHRC can further conduct its own inquiries into real or purported breaches of the Code and issue recommendations.

As part of its mandate to promote Human Rights and to promote awareness of the Code, the OHRC develops legally binding policies.

Section 30 of the Ontario Human Rights Code authorizes the OHRC to prepare, approve and publish human rights policies to provide guidance on interpreting provisions of the Code. The OHRC’s policies and guidelines set standards for how individuals, employers, service providers and policy-makers should act to ensure compliance with the Code. They represent the OHRC’s interpretation of the Code at the time of publication. Also, they advance a progressive understanding of the rights set out in the Code.

Section 45.5 of the Code states that the OHRT may consider policies approved by the OHRC in a human rights proceeding before the OHRT. Where a party or an intervener in a proceeding requests it, the OHRT shall consider an OHRC policy. Where an OHRC policy is relevant to the subject-matter of a human rights application, parties and interveners are encouraged to bring the policy to the OHRT’s attention for consideration.

Section 45.6 of the Code states that if a final decision or order of the OHRT is not consistent with an OHRC policy, in a case where the OHRC was either a party or an intervener, the OHRC may apply to the OHRT to have the OHRT state a case to the Divisional Court to address this inconsistency.

OHRC policies are subject to decisions of the Superior Courts interpreting the Code. OHRC policies have been given great deference by the courts and the OHRT, applied to the facts of the case before the court or the OHRT, and quoted in the decisions of these bodies.

What are the chances that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will behave as we have seen from the Colorado "Civil Right" Commission?

Pretty darn high.

Quote

The OHRC has produced a policy on gender identity and expression and what constitutes harassment and discrimination, including “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.

Thereafter, the OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.

What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination.

And there it is.  Failure to use an arbitrary and self-selected pronoun = discrimination.

Discrimination = punishment.  Fines, perhaps even financially debilitating ones.  And "training" (re-education) that tells you to think what "the government" wants you to think.

Quote

Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory.

Say goodbye to religious liberty.

Quote

It is the OHRC policy requirement that persons must use the pronouns required by the portion of transgendered individuals making that demand that constitutes compelled speech.

Persons not wishing to use those pronouns (or any pronouns for that matter), or not able to use those pronouns as offending their deeply held beliefs, or their faith and religion, are afforded no ability to abstain.  In short, the OHRC requires that you use the words required by the proponents of Bill C-16.

I think that is a correct assessment.

So what happens if you choose to not comply with Bill C-16? Well...

Quote

Some might perceive the compelled speech requirements inherent in the Code, and Bill C-16 as minor, particularly given the widely held opinion that a failure to follow the compelled speech stipulations will not result in serious criminal sanction.

This opinion may very well be correct, but not because the legislation lacks the ability to bring forward serious criminal sanction.  In fact, breaches of Human Rights Tribunal orders can and have (at the federal level) resulted in imprisonment.  Further, the Hate Speech provisions of the Criminal Code can result in increased sentences for those found guilty.

Hmm.  So not just fines and re-education.  Actual imprisonment seems to be on the table.

Imprisonment for not using a particular pronoun.

Tyranny and slavery.

Quote

Focusing on the Human Rights Tribunals, and particularly the OHRT, the path to prison is quite straight-forward.

The OHRT can issue both monetary and non-monetary orders.  Monetary orders are generally restricted to general damages to a complainant.  Non-monetary orders can be anything determined by the OHRT as appropriate in the circumstances including public interest remedies.

Examples of non-monetary orders, include, but are not limited to:

– requirements to communicate or publish an apology or a publication of the facts of the case and the resulting order;

-non-defamation or gag orders (to refrain from making further offending statements);

-non-defamation publication bans (to refrain from printing further offending statements);

– orders to undertake sensitivity or anti-bias training.

While monetary orders can result in imprisonment, the path is somewhat less direct and generally related to a failure to abide by some other court process in the context of a complainant’s efforts to enforce a monetary award (contempt of a garnishment, examination in aid of execution, or writ of execution process).

Orwellian enough for ya?

Quote

With respect to non-monetary orders the path to prison is considerably more straight-forward and generally as follows:

Section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (Ontario) (SPPA) states that an order of the OHRT is in fact an order of the Superior Court.

Section 13 of the SPPA states that the OHRT can pursue a breach of its own orders by pursuing an order for contempt before the Divisional Court (Superior Court).

Rule 60.11(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) confirms that where the court finds a person in contempt, they can order imprisonment for an indefinite period, in addition to fines and other remedies.  Further a judge can issue a warrant for the arrest of any person against whom a contempt order is sought.

The Superior Court does resort to imprisonment to compel compliance with non-monetary orders.  There are numerous cases where contempt of a non-monetary order resulted in imprisonment with many as recent as 2013.

The same mechanisms and procedures can be found at the federal level and they have in fact resulted in the imprisonment of persons who breached the orders of Human Rights Tribunals in other provinces and federally.

So the path to prison createdin Bill C-16 is a bit circuitous, but don't worry!  You can get there eventually!

Quote

Now most persons faced with this ominous path to prison would likely comply with the orders to avoid prison.  However, if an individual deliberately chose not to use the mandated pronouns and then elects to breach a resulting non-monetary order of the OHRT, that person could find themself in prison for that position.

The likelihood that contempt of a Tribunal order will result in imprisonment, remains extremely low.  The risk of this outcome is dependent to a large extent on the benevolence of the public servants that staff the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, as well as the disposition of the justices of the Divisional Court (or the Federal Court).  If the Commissions and Tribunals wish to pursue the policies and the requirement for compelled speech, and the Divisional Court/Federal Court find a clear case of contempt of the underlying Tribunal order, an order for committal could result.

There is no legal or procedural barrier to a prison term, and in fact, the law and procedures are written in such a way as to make this entirely possible.

As an attorney, I am not accustomed to giving credence to hysterical, over-the-top, the-sky-is-falling predictions about laws.

And yet Bill C-16 makes me very, very grateful that I am not a Canadian.

Quote

In summary:

• Bill C-16 will mandate the use of certain language enforceable by the government;
• The mandated language may not be consistent with the opinions and beliefs of all persons in Canadian society;
• It is not clear that one can publicly disavow the mandated language; and,
• With the passing of Bill C-16, a failure to use the mandated language can result in the power of the state being brought to bear on you, resulting in punishments up to and including imprisonment.

Given that the Supreme Court of Canada has found compelled speech to be a “penalty that is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada even for the repression of the most serious crimes”, it might be appropriate to examine Bill C-16 in greater detail to ensure that it remains consistent with Canadian constitutional principles and Canadian traditions of free expression.

I am sobered by this.

I think we all should be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.

If my "audience" is someone making unreasonable demands as to my choice of words, I will not capitulate.

I doubt it.  The cat is already out of the bag.  If those groups stop using "same-sex attraction," it will be from coercion and threats and agenda-driven demands.  It won't be by reasoned and reasonable argument and persuasion.  That's my guess.

Thanks,

-SMac

At least you're being honest.  I can't say I understand how you hold this position.  

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I got those from Google.

In the section I quoted, your sources include Daily Wire and Daily Caller. Enough said.

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you see my simple request as a way of invalidating myself? 😨

I'm not telling people "not to use the term at all." I'm asking people to stop using it to refer to LGBT+ people. The way I'm reading smac and Scott is that they don't want to use the terms gay, lesbian, bisexual, LGBT+, etc., but are insisting that saying I have "same-sex attraction" is the acceptable, value-neutral way of describing me. If I'm misreading them, I'm sorry. 

I can't speak for them. I can say that I do not understand their comments that way at all. Hopefully they will clarify. 

I think the question is and has been how to refer to the larger group of non-heterosexual individuals. Again, I'm generally cool with LGBT (+). But I also understand that many - especially those still in the Church - aren't comfortable being lumped into that label due to the perceived ideology. How do we respectfully include them?

Does anyone here have a problem with "LGBT/SSA?" 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From your perspective, is someone who suffers/struggles with/experiences "same-sex attraction" necessarily gay? Like I said, I've preferred to keep my sexual orientation private, and given some of the responses I've received, I should have kept it that way. Big mistake being open about it here. 

So it would seem you are bi-sexual. I’m cool with that. A poster on this message board whom I like and respect and whom I agree with most of the time, kllindley, is bi-sexual. 

Just trying to understand. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The way I'm reading smac and Scott is that they don't want to use the terms gay, lesbian, bisexual, LGBT+, etc.,

No, I'm not saying that.  Never have.  To the contrary, I use these terms all the time.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Look at my posting history.

What I oppose is the dictum that "same-sex attraction" is out of bounds.  That it is offensive or uncivil or inappropriate.

Quote

but are insisting that saying I have "same-sex attraction" is the acceptable, value-neutral way of describing me. If I'm misreading them, I'm sorry. 

I insist on saying saying what I think.  I can only do that through words.  Words are not always pitch-perfect in conveying a message, but they're all we've got.

If GLAAD and the American Academy of Family Physicians  and federal judges and the New York Times can use words phrases like "same-sex couple" and "same-sex marriage" and "same-sex attraction," then so can I.

If GLAAD can say things like "The study compared people raised by opposite-sex parents in committed relationships to people raised by (often single) parents who had at one time or another experienced same-sex attraction.", then so can I.

If the AAFP can say things like "Non-inclusive language in clinical encounters may be viewed as microaggressions that convey negative impressions and imply it is not safe to disclose same-sex attraction or behavior," then so can I.

If the Huffington Post can publish an article entitled "New Ideas About the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction", then I can use that term too.

If the BBC can say things like "If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction," then so can I.

If the Bisexual Resource Center can say things like "Human sexuality is sometimes seen as a continuum, with same-sex attractions on one end and different-sex attractions on the other...", then so can I.

I will not alter my vocabulary simply because I am using it while being a religious person.  If how I use it matters, I will certainly take that into account.  But asking me to not use it at all is not reasonable.  I will not submit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97