Ah yes, the new elite in our society.

"Your slip's showing, Fred."

I was looking at an Avon booklet at work. Someone asked a smart a-- question and my reply was "I'm picking out my shades for when they have AA for cross dressers. The director was not amused but hey he couldn't say I was wrong.

Where do these guys find the closet space? Oh yeah, I forgot, they're no longer in it!

That's so gay!

Can you just see the lawsuits coming for Tim Hortons over which washroom to use or not to use?
Mens? Womans?

don't forget who Bill Siksay is . . . he was Chief of Staff to Svend Robinson before he was found out to be a jewelry thief and was force to resign.

Siksay took over his riding association & seat.

Just another victim mongering progressive rent seeker.

Anyone who's worked in the oilpatch will support this one. We get preached at constantly on how to dress. The safety freaks even try to tell us what kind of underwear we should wear. It would be a pleasure to show up on a work site, in a little chiffon dress and a sun hat, just to stick it to those jack-asses.

Once again, the inmates are running the asylums. The laws are being set up in such a way that any lawyer that so chooses, can mount a very difficult case against anyone, in almost any department, over almost anything and have a fair chance to win and an almost certain chance of success if he can get the HRC's to take it.

Egypt has it right!!

New RCMP uniform coming down the pipe.
When he joins the musical ride he'll be riding side saddle.
He'll probably refuse to carry a lance, but it'll be OK.

Professor friendly junk/lacy panties should be pleased.

Wonder if this is the reason Carolyn Bennett changed the words to Oh Canada prior to QP yesterday? See Stephen Taylor's post.

Crying.....

Once again, this isn't about rights real or imaginary, but about providing legal protection for hurt feelings. These men look stupid and they know it; their goal is to make it illegal for you to say so.

Ellie in T.O. nailed it.

Hopefully common sense prevails and this bill dies in the senate. I'm not holding my breath.

The Corporal Klinger Act.

That's one for the Human Rights Commission [HRC].

It will take time, yet some of the outrageous rulings can have the possibility to becoming law. If the LIEberals, Non-Democratic Party and the Bloc-mail Parties take over power from voters, expect to see more of this.

I’ll have to see how my MP voted.

This is a perfect excuse for pedophiles to go into an opposite sex change room … they might as well remove the washroom signs off the doors – least you offend them.

It will have implications when one of these men/women wants to go into a washroom, perhaps where a Muslim woman thinks it is wrong - to look at her face … wonder if she can go to the HRC and lodge a complaint. [NOTE: If it were a Christian woman/man – or any Canadian - it would not even be considered worthy of a complaint. Sad.]

Don't worry folks, when the Muslim tumors take over they will have a kill fest with these freaks of nature.

Oh great more training on how to be more PC on the construction job-site , and the guys laugh when I tell them what's coming down the pipes, then groan when some new PC training pops up at the annual " just swallow this crap" meeting. The road to a perfect world is paved in bricks of BS.

protect them from humiliation? When they are humiliating themselves?

So if I happen to snicker at a cross-dresser, I can be hauled in front of an HRT???

Geez, it's getting so bad I'm scared to have a laugh in public anymore...

I certainly hope mullet-wearers don't petition the H o C for protected status, LOL....I couldn't have any fun anymore!

This bill is supposed to end "discrimination" against a specific group. The problem is, how exactly is discrimination defined? Some might say discrimination is the denial of basic human rights, others that it's a active persecution up to and including outright violence. But we've seen how HRCs and their pet plaintiffs define the word. "Discrimination" to them is saying or publishing anything that hurts the feelings of someone in a protected group.

And as these are people whose feelings are hurt even if you merely disagree with them, the results are invariably draconian.

How about some "protection" for the rest of us?

It hurts my feelings when someone says that I'm hurting their feelings.

OH NO!!!!

Abe said it - The Muslims they are bringing in will take care of things in short order.

Legislating a mental disorder. What have we come to?
Hopefully the senate will kill it.

You're all transgenderphobes. Mouthbreathers and racists and bigots, too. (Just had to get that in there before some troll does).

Time to teach my children NOT to act scared of that strange-looking man in the public ladies' washroom, lest the family gets sued or dragged before a HRC.

Time to sell your Hooters stock!

Just another victim mongering progressive rent seeker.
Posted by: Fred at February 10, 2011 11:07 AM"

you're so right fred.

and what was the vote? any conservatists say aye to protect THEIR seat? where does that leave the much vaunted conservatist 'fambly values'?

Honestly do not see what the big deal is. Prior to this couldn't discriminate based on sex anyway, and there have already been court cases with transgendered people. Courts and HRC are already stacked against employers, what else is new?

Seriously if someone is transgendered why is it anyone else's concern? I fail to see why the rest of you are so concerned? Most TG people including one I have as a colleague (who happens to actually vote Conservative) try and keep on the lowdown anyway.

And the purpose of the law will be to prevent "hurt feelings" and the practical application with the "revenue generation" for certain law firms and their clients. When it's found to be a fountainhead of easy money, the people that implemented it will throw up their hands and move on with a "we tried" but the garbage will linger. Not Neat!!

So i guess if we catch Scooter Brison in a dress we will not be able to make comments!

Bill Graham should be relieved...no more snide remarks!

beagle, it took me less than 2 minutes to find how MPs voted. I'm sure that if you can find your way to SDA, you can find the results yourself. All you have to do is ask that nice Mr. Google or dear Uncle Bing.

But, to help you out, 6 CPC MPs voted for this nonsense.

Brian Lilley has some good comments, among them: C-389 is about adding transgendered to the list of protected groups. This is wrong. Read more at his blog http://tinyurl.com/6bp43cb

a new way of wealth redistribution? Get yourself offended by any means necessary, get a big payout? Is that it?

Shame on the "conservatives" who voted for this nonsense.

langmann

If you don't see the problem with men being able to frequent whichever washroom/change-room on a whim, then you've been smoking some of that stuff you prescribe.

If you don't see the problem with employers not being able to dictate what reasonable attire is; then you are lucky the medical profession is run by the govenment, and you need not attract paying customers. This is obviously a distraction for normal employees, and a detriment to conducting a proffessional organization.

The bottom line is this... we should not be accommodating people because of their mental problems at the expense of a reasonable society; and transgenders issues (along with homosexuality) are mental disorders by definition.

Also Lang, the fact you have a TG friend and he votes Conservative is irrelevant. I don't care who he votes for; nor what he does on his spare time. What I do object to, is the belief that normal people should be forced to accommodate this ridiculous deviant fetish. This is not very different than accommodating Sharia law. Dressing in this fashion IS a personal choice, and those people should be responsible for their own choices; not everyone else who must suffer their nonsense.

If I fancy myself a Storm Trooper should I be able to wear my costume to work?

Obviously not, just as a TG should not be able to wear their costume to work. And none of this speaks to the real infringement on the rights of the women that will have to suffer these loons. We have segregated washrooms for a reason Langman!

Thanks Indiana. Lets all be insulting now.

I have a problem with the line in the constitution about discrimination in general, simply because it doesn't really help anyone. Adding transgendered people to that line is a non issue to me. If someone wants to discriminate its their business, I may not like them for it but that is the price of a free society.

Reasonable attire is fine for employers to dictate, if someone is messy then by all means try and fire them. There are already so many things that make that difficult that this will simply not make a difference. In my experience, transgendered people go out of their way to dress up, and while they may have male features like vocal cord prominence, jawbones etc, who cares? The one I work with looks like a woman that there is only one way to tell she didn't start that way...

As to washrooms, women use stalls. AFAIK it hasn't been a major issue with lesbians oggling women in bathrooms, that I am sure if someone pretends to be TG and oggling women they will be dealt with. If someone is looking under the stall most women use, I don't think being Transgendered is going to save them.

To be quite honest, Indiana, if you as a conservative, have a basic appreciation of small government and government out of our lives, like I do as a libertarian, than I suggest that government out of our lives means that for everything, including homosexual marriage etc. You either support small non interventionalist government or you don't. If you are hypocritical such that you want government to tell other people what they cannot do, ie: gay marriage, being transgendered then you face the consequences of hippies telling us we have to register our firearms.

(Oh and as far as mental disorders, homosexuality is no longer one.)

Well, I have decided that I am the Queen of Sheba! I therefore demand the royal treatment to which my self-identification entitles me. And if you refuse to play along, or dare to say that I'm delusional, then you should be thrown in JAIL!!!!

Kathryn said: "But, to help you out, 6 CPC MPs voted for this nonsense."

Kathryn, as a public service and because I'm basically lazy, would you be so awesome as to list those six lewsers?

Could be helpful in future riding association meetings.

John Baird voted "Yea" for this. WTF?

Also (CPC "yes"):
- Lawrence Cannon
- Lisa Raitt
- Shelly Glover
- Gerald Keddy
- James Moore

http://openparliament.ca/bills/votes/1056/

Shame on the "conservatives" who voted for this nonsense.
Posted by: Soccermom at February 10, 2011 1:21 PM"

hi soccermom.

that'd be the 6 'closet' (pun intended) lieberals that kathryn dug up in what was it? 2 minutes !!

aint technology wunnerful !!!

Give me a friggin' break. Are no values sacred anymore? (rhetorical...)

This crap is popping up everywhere. I had to do an employee survey and under the gender question they had: male, female, and other. I sh*t you not. I am left handed but live in a right hand world. I deal with it. No need to get the HRCs involved.

The bill is utter bullshite, giving supremacists' rights to people suffering from identity disorder won't normalize abnormal behavor it shall place yet another burden on society to look away when people suffering from mental health issues and pretend their normal. I'm sick of MP's demanding that equality get thrown in the trash can in favour of fake human rights to people who's right are already protected under the Charter. Any MP who votes for this bill should be targeted in the next election, I believe in equality for all citizens not GRANTING supremacy status for those the leftards assign it to.

How are some people getting supremacy rights from this?

(Before you answer this, if it is about bathrooms, transgendered people already use the bathroom of their choosing, you probably haven't noticed).

(Oh and as far as mental disorders, homosexuality is no longer one.)

And Pluto's not a planet.

"Thanks Indiana. Lets all be insulting now." ??????

What insult?

Also, the fake TG in the woman's washroom is a red herring, IMO women should have the right to piss in private from men, regardless of motives of the MAN that wants to piss with the girls. Do you get that?

"To be quite honest, Indiana, if you as a conservative, have a basic appreciation of small government and government out of our lives, like I do as a libertarian, than I suggest that government out of our lives means that for everything, including homosexual marriage etc."

What a crock! What you are actually saying, like the homo definition and my Pluto example is that the definition of 'marriage' should be changed and forced(by the government(very libertarian)) on everyone else that wishes to preserve the actual definition. I'm not aware of many people that object to gays living their lives and sharing the fruits(no pun) of their labors with their sex friends(can't even call them mates); but we do object to our marriage's being made a mockery (by the government)because a group of people wish to change definitions simply to take-away the identity of others. Mark my words, if straight couples agreed to a new term for straight couples, say 'gooblesmacks'; you can bet the bank that the homos and liberals would be screaming "bloody murder" and demanding equal gooblesmack rights. Do you deny this?

I know many gay people, and am friends with some. One thing IMView is that most homosexual men share in common is a very disturbed mental state. Most gays I know do not have great jobs and fancy cloths. That is the Hollywood glorification of these peoples woes similar to the Hollywood glorification of Hip Hop's pimps & hoes. Most gays I've known are emotionally unstable and have resorted to this deviant behavior as a coping mechanism. They have massive personal problems and often find themselves in very destructive relationships with other disturbed individuals. As a doctor, I'm quite suprised that you'd argue such a point when you've likely seen the emotionally destructive results of this lifestyle first hand. I would not wish gayness on my kids(nor would you, although I would accept it as you would) because all of the Progressiveness in the world will not assuage the much deeper internal issues that a gay person deals with.

Like I said, you're perspective is akin to giving needles to an addict and believing that you're somehow helping that person.

All of that said, I believe you are allowing your personal friendships and bias affect your analytical analysis in this case; even if you are a doctor.

And my disagreement and straight forward uncouth style is not "insulting people", it is simply my opinion. Also Mr.haughty, why should someone's phobia of homos, not get the same empathy as someone with a spider phobia?

Please explain to me how 'deviant sexual behavior' doesn't fall into the 'mental disorder' category? Is beast-loving not a 'mental disorder' also then? How about pedophilia? Because I wouldn't wish that either on my kids.

Sick dick in taffeta and tulle.

Pedophilia harms other people. Homosexuality does not. Pretty easy.

Homosexuality is no longer part of the DSM, therefore not a medical mental disorder or condition.

Gay people getting married has no bearing or effect on your own marriage or anyone else's, just like some guy wearing girl clothes has no effect on your manhood. (As far as I am concerned government should get out of marriage altogether - I resent having government involved in my marriage.)

I want to carry a firearm for self defence. I need it for reasons I will not explain here. The liberal social engineers tell me I cannot. Your behaviour towards people who also wish to live their lifes without other people telling them what to do is not different, don't you see?

Quit worrying about what other people are up to.

You insinuating I am smoking something etc. is insulting.

Johns Hopkins used to do sex change operations, believing that the physical changes in transsexuals’ bodies would result in emotional and mental stability.

After two decades, they stopped doing the operations: the physical changes did not improve the pathologies of their transgendered patients. Johns Hopkins now considers transsexuality to be pathological.

Trust Canadian politicians to decree that Canadians must, by law, accommodate the pathologies of a disordered group if individuals. Oh, oh Canada.

I took my child to Yorkdale Mall in Toronto in early December to do some Christmas shopping. The precise day was Wednesday Dec 8th. The day this bill passed the report stage.

As we were leaving, I noticed a grown man walking through the mall, almost in celebration, in what I can only best describe as "infant" or "baby" clothes designed for a female baby. Like a Little Bo Peep doll, panties, bonnet, the whole deal. He was overweight, looked to be in his mid 50's and was clearly not there as part of a costume but was "expressing himself".

What I suspect was that he was an "infantalist". That is an obscure sect in BDSM culture of heterosexual usually white, middle aged men who get sexually aroused by dressing in infant clothing, usually female. Because of the close link with pedophilia most dominatrixes want nothing to do with infantalists. Because they choose female clothing they usually are just thought of as transgendered when they are not.

I knew that this bill was going through Commons that day and was disgusted. I almost went up to him but realized with the passing of the bill, he would be protected and I would be the one who got in trouble.

For all I know, he was going to go into a women's washroom to wait for someone with a child to come in. There were plenty of kids around. Thankfully my own daughter did not notice.

This was at Yorkdale Mall. At Chistmastime. Not on Church Street. And the man was most likely not gay.

That is the kind of behaviour this despicable bill now protects. If someone else was there and noticed and this man was there for another purpose I would love to hear it. But based on the day I saw him and the look, I suspect I am right.

Welcome to Canada, 2010. Please leave all common sense at the door and enjoy your stay.

Nicol, here's what you do when you see someone like that: ignore them and move on.

Pretty easy.

Anyone who let's their kids go into a public washroom unescorted is asking for trouble. If there is someone in there you don't like but isn't doing anything criminal leave. When you are using the toilet close the door so people don't see your naughty bits.

That's how you survive in the world.

Quit worrying about what other people are up to.

End quote:---------

You can live in your happy place but this bill gives sexual deviant's access to girl's locker rooms bath rooms etc. all they have to do is pretend to be a post op trannie. How many rapes or child molestations will be enough before the social tinkers are held accountable for normalizing abnormal behavior?

How is this giving transgender's supremacy rights, are you really that thick? First of all I can be made fun 24/7 publicly and there is no special legislation giving me special rights that offending me a persecutable offense ergo after the passing of this legislation if I offend some trannie I'm in serious trouble dah.

You're to much Langman blaming the victims of bathroom molestations on the parents. Nice little liberal.

@ Rose: no it won't. Close the door to the bathroom stall. Then they cannot see your privates. If anyone is behaving in a manner in a bathroom other than doing bathroom business, they will eventually get charged with it.

Secondly transexuals already use the bathroom of their choosing. You just haven't been paying attention.

Finally I am against the discrimination clause in the constitution because it causes more problems than it solves. However I am sure you are glad for the religion part of it.

'You insinuating I am smoking something etc. is insulting.'

Sorry Lang, that's common pop-culture slang for 'I think u crazy' which also doesn't mean that I think you're 'crazy'. My bad.

"Gay people getting married has no bearing or effect on your own marriage or anyone else's,"

This is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. There are many disorders that do not hurt others; yet are undesirable none the less. And the literal fact that the definition of MD has changed does not change anything for the person who was once categorized as so. It just moves the goal posts, that's all. Like I said, it's still cold on Pluto regardless of the scientific flavor of the month.

Does c-398 not effect other people's lives? Yes it does, as has been demonstrated with the 'Woman's Washroom' example. Answer this Lang, should we also allow gay men who are not TG to use the girl's room? Since TG does not necessarily = gay, you've got no qualms about a straight TG with a boner in the girls room? What about at a school? I use the 'Boys room' when attending my daughter's ball game. Is it appropriate for me to use the 'Girls room' if I wear a dress or shave my legs?

Quite frankly, you've addressed none of the issues pointed-out by me or others. What you've done is make an incoherent argument simply parroting Leftist talking points on the issue. I'm quite surprised that someone with your background would argue this way. NOW... I'm not saying that your POV isn't valid, but I am saying that your defense of your POV is 'incoherent' as I said above.JMO_nothing personal.

"Gay people getting married has no bearing or effect on your own marriage or anyone else's, just like some guy wearing girl clothes has no effect on your manhood."

Finally, it's you Lang who is the insulting person here, with your assumption that my point of view comes from what ever garbage you're spouting in the quote above. I neither care what homos are doing in private, nor what they wear or what who they vote for. What I do care about is the State imposing PC views on me. If I don't want to hire someone who doesn't have the courtesy to dress in an appropriate manor; or, if I want to LOL at obvious ridiculousness of someones attire or personality then that's my business. Not the governments!

Bygones:)

A few years back there was a coffee shop on commercial Drive in Vancouver's Little Italy area, and the owner (Portuguese, if it matters) ejected 2 lesbians for making out in it. This, as can be imagined in Vancouver, cause a sensation and people protested and boycotted and tried to have him shut down, etc., etc., and supporters of "Joe", the
owner, filled its seats and tables to over-flowing for weeks and months on end. I'm unaware of who it all ended, but it shows that, if people really have had enough, there is a way of fighting back. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Joe's supporters were gay themselves.

I imagine it's never occurred to anyone that they are enabling bad behaviour. In fact, that's all we've done. If you don't like it when someone criticises your religion, sue. If you don't like it when a marriage commissioner sees and says what everyone else sees but won't say, sue. Now the neurotic dress-wearers can sue.
We've given power to idiots. We're the bigger idiots for doing it.

I have no problem with this bill...

...so long as any woman can walk into a gun shop and buy a bright pink .45 Colt or a nice .38 Smith that matches her lipstick and drop it in her purse. Oh, and shoot somebody who tries it on with her without going to jail and/or losing everything she owns

Other than that, the man-in-a-dress-in-the-ladies-bathroom thing just doesn't fly. Government has a job to do, this is them not doing it.

By the way Langmann, not piling on or anything, but since when is making one small group of weirdos a specially protected species something Libertarians are for?

I don't care what manner of perverse whackoism people get up to at home, I do care if my six year old kid runs into it in the bathroom at McDonalds.

Remember, Leftists know no bounds. How are you going to feel when daycares start getting dragged into court because they won't hire Sparkle the 300lb transvestite in a tutu? There's -already- that case of the gym owner in front of the OHRC because he refused to let some tranny use the girls shower.

But how many of the transgendered currently wear the Niquab and the Burka?

I'm waiting for the gov't. survey question on that.

After all, female genital mutilation, isn't that being partial transgendered?

Indy, you're on fire. Somehow I know know you'll appreciate this language warning!

If I walk down the street dressed like a hooker, that's my right, but am I really entitled to demand that nobody find it inappropriate? That nobody question whether I'd make a good babysitter or a novice nun?

I don't want the government to dictate how people should dress (this is the reason I hate having come to the pragmatic conclusion that face coverings, i.e. strict female Islamic clothing, need to be banned), but I also d@mn well don't want them dictating how the rest of us need to feel about it. Furthermore I don't care what's in the DMMD because psychiatry is kind of a scam and most shrinks are loonies.

@ Phantom and Indiana:

With respect, you didn't read everything of what I said.

I specifically said I do not support the line in the constitution regarding discrimination - period. As I said already that part causes too many problems and doesn't help people. As I already said, employers should be able to discriminate any way they want. Its their business.

What I am saying is that since it is there in the constitution, adding transgendered people to it isn't a big deal. You guys are arguing about the hens while the henhouse door is already wide open.

Now I didn't bring up homosexuals, Indiana did. However they fit in the whole LGBT classification scheme I guess. I fail to see how homosexual marriage affects your own marriage, can you explain? What you've done is make an incoherent argument simply parroting "Big Brother Wanting to Tell Others What to Do" talking points on the issue.

In regards to bathrooms: my point is that if someone dresses female, thinks they are female, you're not going to really know and if they use the can like everyone else, it affects you in no way. They already are using female bathrooms, and suddenly you found out about it and now you're all angry.

The rare few genius' who decide to warp this for their own sexual stimulation and benefit are going to get found out and charged for lewd behaviour. Last time I checked, using the can didn't mean they could look under the stall doors and touch your naughty bits.

I am not a liberal. I am a libertarian. The consequences of wanting the government the f8ck out of my life also means I have no right telling others what they can or cannot do.

No matter how stupid you think they look.

Because you can be sure they think my "hunting", "gun", "stay at home take care of our kids", "Christian" culture is stupid too, and they sure seem to want to change me.

(I guess I mean the DSM-IV, if that's the number we're on now.)

How many of the transgendered currently wear the niquab or the Burka?

Female genital mutilation, isn't that being partially transgendered?

Do the immigration officials ask about that? Well, they certainly won't be doing that now.

As for the flagrant cross dresser, some shoppers may lose their appetite or even their lunch.

Would you take their advice when buying clothes?
"So, does this suit me or does it make me look ridiculous?" Like, they'd know?

Would you buy a used car from a transgendered sales person?

Would you be suspicious that just maybe the transmission or engine had been switched from that of another make or model?

Langmann - "I fail to see how homosexual marriage affects your own marriage, can you explain?" - because it attempts to destroy the very nature of marriage, which is by definition a social and not a private institution (is there such a thing as a private institution?). People who demand the right to "gay marriage" are not demanding that government cease preventing them from anything; they are demanding that govenment confer something on them. (Actually I agree with your earlier comment: At this point government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. But it's not a healthy state of affairs.)

"The rare few genius' who decide to warp this for their own sexual stimulation and benefit are going to get found out and charged for lewd behaviour." They won't, though, will they? Instead, the cops who try to arrest them will be fired or, worse yet, sent to "sensitivity training".

@ Black Mamba, I don't want the government dictating how we feel about stuff, either. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to dress like a clown, ie: in baby clothes, stripper wear, women's dress etc, and run down the street or through a mall, all anyone can do is shake their head and keep moving. Cannot change crazy - I've given up on it a long time ago, though I haven't thrown out all of psychiatry...

The problem is also one of legal precedent. No, one cannot change crazy...but to legalize, protect and endorse it is crazy.

And lest you think SSM has not set the precedent to send us down this road, look at the case of Columbia University Professor David Epstein. His lawyers are using the legal precedent of SSM to fight for the legalization of incest.

See these things are about legal precedent and how words can be interpreted. That is what this is about.

Sorry, Langman that you worship government so much you cannot see this.

@ Black Mamba: marriage: Nah buddy. There are so many things destroying marriage already, and its mostly the people in one. The government has no right to be involved in a marriage or say who can perform one, or make someone perform one. And for that matter, my marriage before God has nothing to do with the rest of society, its between me, my wife, her family, my family, and our children. I don't care what society says about my marriage in fact I want them the f8ck out of it. And it is completely different from her sister's marriage before a public official without her parents in attendence.

Regarding rare few genius's - last time I checked people who make sexual comments, inappropriate gestures, touching etc. are all chargeable as sexual assault of whatever grade. Since most transgendered people are already using the can of their choice, and being pretty discreet about it, I'd say like guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, its pretty safe.

The entire list of protected groups must go and there can be no compromise. Protected groups run contrary to the notion of equality and undermine faith in a fair Canada.

@ Nicol: take a deep breath. Then count back five posts and see what I think of government.

Langmann,

Take a deep breath and read a book on what libertarianism actually means. I have read all of your posts and do not think you have the foggiest clue.

I knew that Walmart shopper I saw was Layton.

Langmann - okay, well the marriage thing at this point comes down to whether society - the state - has any say in the matter. Gay marriage advocates are not demanding that the state cease marrying anybody, they are demanding that the state start "marrying" them. Since the whole thing is a stalking horse for polygamy, I say the state relegate itself to enforcing contracts, if it can manage that, and leave the churches and various online cults and such to perform "weddings". It's a shame, though; it was better when we all had some basic common understandings. I blame the semi-legal status of common law "marriages". Anyway it's off topic.

re. The bathroom thing (I've been wondering for years how many bathrooms we'd wind up with) - yeah, in theory it's straight forward (no pun). In theory the police let you go to the loo where you want but stop you if you - what? Leer at someone? Say something inappropriate? Start w@nking off loudly in the stall? I mean, there's a lot of judgement involved in public toilet etiquette. And in theory the Police arrest you if you set up a lawless gangland situation on stolen property. In practice the police will be terrified to bother any sexually deviant individual who has done anything short of outright rape for fear of being tagged as "phobic", just like in practice the police don't enforce the law in Caledonia.

Frankly, if you can pass as a woman, and you're using the girls' bathroom, then no harm no foul anyway. Same now as in 1920. If you don't look like a woman and you use the woman's bog then you will make some girls very uncomfortable. Personally I don't care much but life has taught me that most people are very fussy and public space is public space.

@ Nicol: You're the one who wants to tell people what they can or cannot dress like... keep telling yourself your style of big government is any different from the lefty style.

@ Black Mamba: the last guy I saw, caught for wanking off in the woman's can they brought into the hospital ED for psychiatric assessment was only a few months ago. Cops didn't seem to give a crap about his sexual identity, which happened to be homosexual as he kept telling us for some reason, but were more concerned about his irrational behvaiour (not that I am suggesting they have a higher rate of wanking off in public washrooms).

I don't think bagging people (no pun intended) for lewd acts performed in public washrooms are going to get the cops in much trouble in regards to the constitution, because at the end of the day they look like big heroes when they save little kids from weird bathroom predators and fiends. The optics are just too much in their favor.

And like I said, they should get rid of the whole discrimination thing from the constitution entirely.

We need some degree of common culture to function. It can't be legislated into existance, or even maintained by legislation, but we do need it. Libertarians never acknowledge this. If anything, Government is what rushes in to fill the void when we lose it.

And therefore Government has an interest in working to destroy it.

@ Black Mamba: oh regarding marriage, if the homosexuals want the state to marry them, what is the big deal? I don't respect the state anyway. Like you I agree the state should be out of marriage altogether and leave it between people and their lawyers, or churches or whatever, but that is currently not the law.

Actually Black Mamba, libertarians think people already have culture which ties them together and works without government intervention. And as you said no legislation can define culture anyway. Its the government which rips culture apart, pits people against each other by giving one group more rights than another, and us libertarians hate the government getting involved in our culture.

In regards to bathrooms, there are no public bathrooms. Each business that owns the bathroom can set it up and dictate how they want it to run. That's my opinion.

"if the homosexuals want the state to marry them, what is the big deal? I don't respect the state anyway." I don't want it turned into an object of open ridicule just for the sake of it. The state has a few legitimate functions; roads, basic law enforcement, etc. Otherwise you're living in Somalia or Road Warrior, with all that awful '80s hair.

Anyway, this is turning into one of those extended debate thingees Kate doesn't like.

Black Mamba: "The state has a few legitimate functions; roads, basic law enforcement, etc. Otherwise you're living in Somalia or Road Warrior, with all that awful '80s hair."

On that I agree. Except for the 80's hair... ;)

I didn't read the whole thread here -- did anyone bring up that TG guy who wanted to work at a rape crisis centre, and took the place to court when the managers didn't want an obvious MALE councilling female rape victims? Was that in Vancouver?

Anyway, that's a first-rate example of the danger of this bill. Common sense is going to be sued and labelled out of existence. Kate's headline has it right: "The One More Reason Never to Become an Employer" Act.

Langmann, are you for real? You're telling me that you simply cannot understand why a woman would not want a male in the women's washroom? How the hell are we supposed to know whether a man walking into the bathroom in a dress is "post op" -- lift up his skirt??

One of the dirty little secrets of transgenders is that a large percentage of them do NOT have surgery. Contrary to popular belief, many like to keep their genital equipment intact. I wouldn't want that in the stall next to me-- or my daughter if I had one. If you need me to explain to you why not,then you really are an imbecile.

First of all, I think being transgendered and cross-dressing are two different things. I was under the belief that transgendered people think and feel like the opposite sex of what they were born as.

I feel bad actually for those truly born with sexuality issues because obviously there is something going on in their brain that makes this sort of thing happen. I think science would be doing these folks a favour by finding out why the brain is screwing it up.

For those who are just straight out flamers ... most of them wouldn't last 10 seconds in a "conservative" office setting anyway.

@ Ellie: how are you going to tell? Have them walk through a TSA body scanner Xray? Bathroom police?

They're going into your bathroom all the time and you have no idea. Get it?

Do you think if they went into male washrooms they wouldn't be given a hard time since they look like a woman for all anyone knows?

"conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

does that mean its discrimination if I refer to Graham James as a pervert or pedophile because he's been pardoned ??? If so, that's effed up !!!

The issue with this bill is now any creep can put on a dress, say he "feels" he's a women, and ogle girls or children in a public washroom. Effectively transformed TGs who no one notices, and who have been going to the oposite-gender public washrooms for years already with no one noticing --- fine. They've got issues, but there's not much anyone can really do about it. It's the creeps that this law will enable -- that's the problem with the bill.

"Do you think if they went into male washrooms they wouldn't be given a hard time since they look like a woman for all anyone knows?"

Well, boo frickin' hoo. It was their decision to put on female attire, so let THEM suffer the consequences.

Langmann, why are you still here anyway? Why don't you go join the chorus of whiny moral degenerate crybabies on the Globe & Mail comments section (article: Transgendered-rights Bill Headed for Defeat in Tory-controlled Senate)? Like you, they're convinced the world will come to an end if cross dressers don't get an imaginary "right" that they've never enjoyed before in all of history.

For my part, I still hew to the old adage: "Your 'rights' end where MY nose begins."

Tone down the insults, please.

I try to stay consistent, but I'm afraid from here on in, I WON'T try anything once...

This was at Yorkdale Mall. At Chistmastime. Not on Church Street. And the man was most likely not gay.

That is the kind of behaviour this despicable bill now protects. If someone else was there and noticed and this man was there for another purpose I would love to hear it. But based on the day I saw him and the look, I suspect I am right.

Welcome to Canada, 2010. Please leave all common sense at the door and enjoy your stay.
Posted by: Nicol D at February 10, 2011 3:48 PM"

exactly ms. d.

and remember, SIX closet lieberals including the faggot baird voted in favour.

the 6 votes provided a measure of 'insurance' it would pass.

get your house in order conservatists.

Oh Langman, are you only now figuring out what the culturecons really meant by 'limited government'? They really meant lower taxes and their prejudices-including their definition of marriage-imposed on all. To stop Teh Gayz agenda (no really they believe that).

This bill is bad because it takes away real rights for fake ones but it probably doesn't change much. It would help if the compassionless ignoramuses with no knowledge of transgenderism-which is a real medical/psychological condition-were to please just shut up.

"Anyone who let's their kids go into a public washroom unescorted is asking for trouble." And don't forget that women who wear short skirts are just asking to be raped.Really now, I'm astonished that a child's parent would be blamed - is that what these pervs think - is that how they justify themselves - the mother or father of this child must want me to do this, so it's ok -wow.

What a sick world we live in - there was a time, not all that long ago - that a child could go to the bathroom safely - there is no shame anymore - people have forgotten how to blush.

I've never once, in my several decades of life, entered a public washroom where someone had not shut the stall door behind them - the thought of not closing the stall door behind me has not ever entered my mind. Is this a new trend or something?

I'm in no way suggesting langman, who made the kids asking for it comment is a pervert - just wanted to make that perfectly crystal clear. I reread the post and saw there was room for misunderstanding.

"I blame the semi-legal status of common-law 'marriages'". - Black Mamba. 'nuff said!

Marjory LeBreton, Government Leader in the Senate, said she “couldn’t hazard a guess” as to how quickly C-389 might make it through the upper house. The vote will be free, she said. “Personally, I’m sort of ambivalent about it.”

Now that is funny.

"They're going into your bathroom all the time and you have no idea. Get it?"

Lang, this hardly condones anything.

." I fail to see how homosexual marriage affects your own marriage, can you explain?"

We've(I've) been over this, but you ignored what I said:

"To be quite honest, Indiana, if you as a conservative, have a basic appreciation of small government and government out of our lives, like I do as a libertarian, than I suggest that government out of our lives means that for everything, including homosexual marriage etc."

"What a crock! What you are actually saying, like the homo definition and my Pluto example is that the definition of 'marriage' should be changed and forced(by the government(very libertarian)) on everyone else that wishes to preserve the actual definition. I'm not aware of many people that object to gays living their lives and sharing the fruits(no pun) of their labors with their sex friends(can't even call them mates); but we do object to our marriage's being made a mockery (by the government)because A GROUP OF PEOPLE WISH TO CHANGE DEFINITIONS SIMPLY TO TAKE-AWAY THE IDENTITY OF OTHERS. Mark my words, if straight couples agreed to a new term for straight couples, say 'gooblesmacks'; you can bet the bank that the homos and liberals would be screaming "bloody murder" and demanding equal gooblesmack rights. Do you deny this?"

I'll put this another way for you, and I'll use an analogy to clear things up. Take the change in the meaning of the word Metis for example. At one time not long ago Metis was defined as the child of a Frenchman and an Aboriginal. Today, if you look in the dictionary the term has been changed to mean and a child born of Aboriginal and Caucasian parents. Now putting aside the politically correct reasons the meaning of this term has been changed; I will instead focus on the consequences of such a change. The bottom line is, by changing the meaning of the word Metis, you are in fact robbing classic Metis of their history. You are in fact making a "mockery" of their history. Now, the word 'Metis' in it self has no power; but, since the 'classic Metis' have not been redefined, their uniqueness and history ends-up being eviscerated. This is the same uniqueness that Quebec wishes to protect, and it's the same uniqueness that married people wish to protect. Think about it as our *N*word.

Also, I think you're missing the point about the bathrooms. It doesn't matter if they are legit TG or not. MEN IN WOMAN'S & GIRL'S WASHROOMS IS INAPPROPRIATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of the fact that "They're going into your bathroom all the time and you have no idea. Get it?". The issue is, what would those people say if they DID have an idea that some dude is in the woman's washroom!!!

Where are the rights of everyone else Lang? And the "It doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you" argument doesn't cut it.

Bygones:)

Thanks Mamba; LUV DC.

It's the creeps that this law will enable -- that's the problem with the bill.

End quote:-------------

Yep the pervs and pedos are going to love this legislation, of course when incidents happen they'll be played down by liberal media.

@ Indiana: okay then. Christian marriages take away from the classic Jewish definition of marriage. They make a mockery out of Jewish history. The government should not allow it.

That's the problem with free speech, and personal freedoms, Indiana. Sometimes your beliefs aren't shared by other people. That's why I don't spend too much time worrying about what other people are doing...

langman: "..some guy wearing girl clothes has no effect on your manhood."

Maybe not, but some guy wearing girl clothes who gets upset because he looks like a wuss and someone laughs at his eye makeup and then decides to take the laugher to the CHRC has an effect on one's freedom of expression.

That's what this is about, if you haven't figured it out. An increasing number of us are being told what we can and can't say about protected groups and individuals: In Canada, you can say nasty things about Christians and stay-at-home moms (the radical feminists do it all the time) but, now, you have to watch your p's and q's if you make a comment about or snicker at how outlandish a raging queen looks within his/her earshot. S/he can haul you in front of an HRC, which is no joke. Ask Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, the Rev. Stephen Boissoin, or Scott Brockie.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/alberta-hrc-christians-have-no.html

http://www.theinterim.com/issues/society-culture/brockie-ruling-infringes-religious-freedom-of-christian-printer/

If you do away with the big laws, you don't have liberty or even anarchy; you have little laws.

G.K. Chesterton

@ batb: discrimination against religion is already not allowed. Its not my fault the HRC discriminates...

I already told you, I am not in favor of any anti-discrimination laws - period. The problem is the hens are already out of the henhouse. Yet another group not to discriminate against doesn't matter.

But all this hallabaloo about washrooms sounds just like the anti-gun nutters hallabalooing about citizens carrying firearms how there would be blood in the streets!

langman: " ... discrimination against religion is already not allowed. Its not my fault the HRC discriminates..."

Well, langman, have you ever voiced your objections to the fact that the HRCs always honour gay "rights," which aren't even included in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while they routinely trash Canadians' freedoms of religion and expression? When it comes to the HRC, gays, and Christians, gays' "rights" trump Christians' rights every time.

What a cop out: It's not my fault.

That's what those who knew what the Nazis were doing, systematically exterminating European Jews, said when the horror came to light. It wasn't/isn't my fault.

Grow a pair, langman, and see if you can't expand your concept of justice.

"Well, langman, have you ever voiced your objections to the fact that the HRCs always honour gay "rights," "

No. I have voiced my opinion that we don't need the HRC period.

It's possible to still like homosexual and transgendered people and still despise the HRC.

Thanks anyway.

Who said anything about not liking homosexual and transgendered people?

That's always the tricksy game the pro-gay agenda folks play: If you have a problem with the lifestyle which, BTW, puts its practitioners at risk of higher rates than the rest of the population of drug and alcohol abuse, abusive and violent relationships -- of which there are many -- and STDs and opportunistic diseases, you, apparently, don't like homosexual or transgendered people.

A lie.

It's simply not true. I have gay friends and, frankly, what they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine with me. It's the activist gay agenda I have a huge problem with -- the promotion of the lifestyle as "normal and natural" -- because it's a supremacist agenda, 'nothing to do with equality, which tries, at every turn, to coerce, silence, and punish those who disagree with it. Activist proponents use illiberal means, i.e., the HRCs, to silence and punish those who don't go along with them.

So, you're welcome.