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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

  5. @ 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.

  6. ‘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:)

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. @ 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.

  14. 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?

  15. 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”.

  16. @ 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…

  17. 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.

  18. @ 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.

  19. 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.

  21. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. @ 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.

  25. 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.

  27. @ 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.

  28. 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.

  29. “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.

  30. 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… 😉

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. @ 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?

  35. “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 !!!

  36. 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.

  37. “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.”

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. “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?

  43. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. “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:)

  48. 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.

  49. @ 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…

  50. 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/

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation