105 Replies to “Bill C-389: The One More Reason To Never Become An Employer Act of 2011”

  3. 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.

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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!!

  10. 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.

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

  14. 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.

  18. 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.]

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

  20. 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.

  21. 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!

  22. 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?

  27. 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.

  29. 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’?

  30. 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.

  31. 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!!

  32. 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!

  33. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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!

  38. 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.)

  39. 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!!!!

  40. 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.

  42. 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 !!!

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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).

  47. (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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation