Monday, February 7, 2011

"Bathroom Bill" Again

The second hour of debate was advanced to today's sitting, with the final vote expected on February 9. Unfortunately, with the support of some socially twisted folks on the Conservative caucus, the bill is likely to pass the third reading. If it becomes law, that will not only provide legal backing for all those sexual deviants who demand access to the other sex bathrooms on the grounds that they are "trapped in the body of the wrong sex", but will also make it easier for them to aggressively push their agenda to children, as part of the school's "equity" and "inclusiveness" curriculum, (not to mention so called "sex education",) with anyone who disagrees likely to be charged with "hate speech".
Bill C-389 does not include a definition of “gender identity” or “gender expression”. My worry is that many aspects of gender identity issues contain a strong element of self-definition. Yes, one can choose a sexual orientation. This disordered choice is already being pushed in our public and Catholic schools. It's a form of verbal engineering. The standard diagnostic manual for psychiatrists, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 4th Edition, lists gender identity questions as a disorder. This definition is not an opinion, but comes from the experts. The condition is very different from such objective states as race, color, creed or gender, all of which the law quite rightly protects from discrimination in the workplace, and in the provision of goods and services.
Fortunately, bill C-389 still has to go through the Senate. Not sure if we can look forward for it to be actually voted down. (In spite of the majority status, it's unlikely that the governing caucus dares to vote down yet another opposition bill that has been passed by the House of Commons; being scolded by the press and the opposition for voting down the Kyoto bill (C-311) is more than enough for them.)

But, at least they can stall the bill, the way they've stalled the anti-spanking bill (S-204) and the forced Supreme Court bilingualism bill (C-232). At least, the "progressives" no longer have the overwhelming majority they used to have 7 years ago when the ill-famous bill C-250 was rushed through the Senate. So there's still hope that sexual predators' dirty wishes won't receive legal backing from the Parliament.

No comments: