92
Interesting story from work today, even more interestingly, on the heels of the recent AWWA period campaign mishap, and how I actually even commented on a couple of posts relating to that on here.
I'm a public librarian. A young teenage girl came up to the reference desk this afternoon and asked in a quiet voice, "do you guys have any pads?" Not a common request, but it does happen. We do keep a stash for this scenario so I handed one over to her as discreetly as I could; she was very thankful and I thought that was the end of it.
About 40 minutes later, another woman came up to the desk and told me there was a girl in a stall in the women's washroom, and had been there for a long time. (The same backpack was on the floor.) I went and checked; there was only one occupied stall and sounded like crying. I knocked on the door and asked if she was okay, and the door actually opened. It was the same teen, she was just standing there with her jacket tied around her waist. Looking kind of freaked out.
She told me it was her first period; she’d bled through her pants and was miserable. I asked if she was okay, if she had her cell with her (she did, and she had a friend from their high school coming with clothes and Ibuprofen.) I asked if she wanted company until her friend got there, she said yes. I introduced myself, chatted a bit with her about mine, but didn’t want to overwhelm her or anything. Her friend showed up, she cheered up quite a bit, and they both left, and the teen turned to me and thanked me, and I said no problem, “we’ve all been there.” She gave me the biggest smile at that.
About an hour later there was a phone call to the front desk: it was the girl’s mother asking for me by name, and thanking me. It was a pleasant call, and lovely to hear thanks, but that’s not the point of the story. The point is:
This girl was embarrassed, and your first time, even if mentally somewhat prepared, is always a shock. I just kept thinking the entire time: what if we didn’t have separate washrooms? This girl, in this moment, needed privacy and some gentle reassurance, and women who understood. What if that wasn’t the case? If she didn’t have a private, actual safe space for that experience? Do we really live in a society where this 13/14 year-old girl would be called transphobic if she were to be vocally grateful for this space?
I'm not sure if I feel inspired by this or defeated. Lol. Either way, it felt important.
Some clarification on what is outlined in the Bill and what constitutes a "hate crime" in Canada
From the Bill:
For greater certainty — content that foments hatred (3) For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
Current definition of a hate crime:
Hate crimes are criminal acts done by a person who is motivated by an extreme bias or hatred towards a particular social group (CRRF 2020). Hate crimes may be directed at physical, symbolic targets (such as a mosque) or at individuals or groups of people.
In order to protect the public from extreme forms of hate speech, the Criminal Code also contains four hate propaganda offences:
advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group (subsection 318(1));
inciting hatred against an identifiable group in a public place that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace (subsection 319(1))
“Identifiable group" is a defined term in the Criminal Code (subsection 318(4)); wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group other than in private conversation (subsection 319(2));
wilfully promoting antisemitism by denying, condoning, or downplaying the Holocaust (subsection 319(2.1));
It would be nice if private conversations were excepted, but they too can have profound consequences. I offer the following scenario: I talk to someone and express a “hateful” opinion towards TIMs (which may be that I’m not 100% fawning and validating). That someone disagrees with me and makes a complaint to whoever has power over me. For some professions, even a whiff of “transphobia” is sufficient to lose one’s job, to have one’s life completely destroyed.
That scenario wouldn't be defined as a "hate crime" in law because it is not a crime or promoted a crime, it took place in private conversation, and it did not lead to any sort of violence or extremism against TIMs.
Even if you said in private: "I hate all X because they're ABC and they all deserve to have their heads cut off," that's still not a hate crime or hate speech.
If you took to the radio or TV or formed a rally in which you advocated for X group to be decapitated and touted your hatred for them and encouraged hatred from others, then that could constitute a hate crime. Even that the court would have to prove that you promoted that hatred (i.e. it wasn't a preconceived belief of those listening) and that the hatred you stated had the potential to or actually did disrupt the peace (such as incite violence, theft, destruction of property against a specific targeted group.)
How is “violence” defined, hopefully in a commonsensical way and not a “my feelings were hurt” kind of way
The Bill defines it as:
content that incites violence means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause
(a) serious bodily harm to a person;
(b) a person’s life to be endangered; or
(c) serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system.
320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life
This is a bill that purports to protect children from online exploitation (good! if only!) but sneaks in words that are absolutely shocking. Here is is, talking about “hate crimes”:
And “hate” is defined as
This can be used to punish and harass women in so many ways. I feel I’m practically “back in the USSR”. What next? Siberia? Gulag?
I think we’ll have a jolly good time meeting one another in prison, dear Canadian Ovarites. Personally, I am well past the zone of mere “dislike”, and well into “detestation” …and I think many of you are, too. And how can you NOT detest the TIMs? Today as I was reading about the “chest feeding” I felt myself sinking into the very red zone of “vilification”.
It will not take long for this bill, if enacted in its current form, to start making victims. Imprisonment for life! Not for pedophiles, murderers, serial killers, but for detesting TIMs.
Is it retroactive? Asking for a certain prime minister who did blackface once
No such luck 🤨
This is literally a bill against thought crimes and personal feelings. How the fuck they gonna make hatred illegal? I can hate whoever I want as long as I don't hurt them. Hatred and detestation are my right. No one deserves my favor.
You have to remember that this is hatred as defined in a legal sphere. It isn't making "hatred" illegal. It's looking to bolster already existing hate crime legislation in Canada. A hate crime is one of extremism that advocates for or enacts violence against an identifiable group of people in the public sphere (including online).
In your personal, everyday life, you can hate as much as you want. You can share how much you hate a specific group in private conversation whether it is in person or through messaging apps. You cannot, however, openly declare and promote that hate through public channels (e.g., on TV or radio, on social media, hosting rallies) with the intent to spread that hatred in a way that promotes violence and extremism.
Examples of hate crimes: antisemitic rallies, neo-Nazi parades, advocating for the death of a specific group of people on TV.
In terms of online, most hateful comments are passed over. You need to show evidence of radicalization and extremism to violence to be on the monitor list of cyber security organizations. Source: close contact who works in anti-terrorism.
Canada already has serious hate speech laws - this is just extending them specifically to the online sphere (and seemingly increasing punishment for them to a crazy degree). The real problem, and danger to us, is the potential interpretation of the definition of hate and the bs inclusion of gender identities on the protected groups list.
The punishment is way too extreme,
I'm gay, and the amount of men who try to say otherwise to try and bolster their chances(?), is enough to make me a rich woman if it were a nickel toll,
Does that insinuate that those men are now risking jail time?
Or,
Can we flip it back on the T, have me accuse a transwoman for disrespecting my sexual orientation?
Or is the rest of the community tacked on as an afterthought, and this only pertains to tendie gendies?