Saturday, June 17, 2017

"Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns"

Via Drudge:  Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the House of Commons to pass into law.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”


Leland said...

Time to remind some lefties they need to keep their promise to move to Canada.

edutcher said...

Another one of those times when you wish Richard Montgomery, Benedict Arnold, and Dan Morgan had won.

ndspinelli said...

This is what happens when you elect the bastard child of Fidel Castro as PM. He'll be gone soon. I will make sure I offend as many as possible when we go to Nova Scotia next month. When it comes to offending, while my default is nice, I am Roy Hobbs when I want to be offensive.

Chip Ahoy said...

Gay Pride parade today, ends at Civic Park a few blocks north. The whole area was crawling with colorful people.

Very colorful people.

At the first corner I chatted it up with two heavyset women. One of lesbian persuasion and the other undecided. Very plain besides. Not colorful. We were waiting for walk light but with no cars in the distance. I said, "It's inevitable. When I step out onto the street against the light then a car suddenly appears from nowhere and gasses it to make the light." The woman misunderstood. She thought I was afraid to walk across, and she said, "We'll walk with you across the street." And they did. At my pace. They protected me. Event though I don't need any such thing. Still, very kind, don't you think?

This is the second time a young lesbian woman took it upon herself to walk with me across Broadway.

And two makes a pattern.

Chip Ahoy said...


Thank you guys for the recommendation of "No Country for Old Men."

Beautiful film. Once is enough, though, thank you.

I pretty much love every single scene. Pure art, all the way through. Each shot a painting.

And I love how the film itself ages as it goes.

Viewers are totally into the first scene, I was, the plot being hunting the pronghorn. He has a great shot at the deer and takes it. Then immediately dropped because object of interest changes from deer to suitcase of cash.

Then the car accident near the end is wholly random. SMASH. The worst car accidents have no sound of brakes. And the absolute psychopath pays the boys, and over generously, for the shirt and to say that the guy left before the boys even saw him.

Then the discussion at the end signaling the suitcase of cash is no longer relevant.

Two mulligans advanced and then dropped, the pronghorn and then the suitcase of cash. Most unusual.

I think.

And the sheriff says he expected God to be relevant to his later life, but God never appeared.

Then the next scene the sheriff relates two dreams, one significantly spiritual. All that preceded is dropped in favor of the audience analyzing the indian on horseback holding the horn of fire, who passes indifferently, but with certainty will be there at the end of the dream trek. (although that known end never happens in the dream) He dreamed the fire can light and warm only so much, that light is an individual light, and it will be there when he catches up on foot. He dreamed God really is there, take it or not, He's there. That whole scene is a painting. I believe the twisted mesquite tree next to the leaning straight bare armature of a pine is a painting. Not a single leaf moved as if the atmosphere is holding its breath. The scene itself is a painting, not just the background through the window. I was mesmerized with the artistry throughout the entire film. Very well framed photographed without being overly clever.

The end of the film that drops the main mulligan about the suitcase of cash to switch to spiritual maturity reveals this is a coming of age film.

A bildungsroman, if you like.

It's a word.

I enjoyed this film very much. Thank you again.

The helper sheriff is the youngish grandfather on "Raising Hope" available on Netflix. Another very good show that I'm enjoying immensely. A lot of the cast is also in "My Name is Earl."

Cloris Leachman is in "Raising Hope" always sexed up, in her old lady bra, or some bizarre costume, and doing absurd things. At the end of S3E10 Leachman runs away from home again and is seen by viewers sitting on a stool onstage at a comedy club, The Tickle Hut. She looks perfectly natural onstage.

"If you've ever voted for a president whose picture is on money... you might be an old person."
"If the expiration date on your can of peaches has roman numerals on it... you might be an old person."
"You ever had a three-way with Lewis and Clark... you might be an old person."
"If you throw away your change purse and start keeping quarters in your elbow... you might be an old person.
"If you've ever bought or sold a human being... [the crowd takes the cue] you might be an old person."

AllenS said...

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau

That just about says it all.

Rabel said...

I saw Usher Of The Black Rod open for Megadeath in Memphis in 1999.

rhhardin said...

We have he and she because it almost matters which you are.

The reason that pronouns are a closed class (no new words added) is that that doesn't change.

Prepositions are another closed class. Nobody discovers new prepositions other than misuse of conjunctions.

Rabel said...

I might be willing to accept the inclusion of "xie" in the dictionary if it was accompanied by the exclusion of "whom" for all uses.

Oh sure, its easy in simple sentence constructions but it can get complicated. And at times whom's proper use has a nails on the chalkboard effect. For example take this sentence from a grammar site:

"Whom should I talk to about labeling food in the refrigerator?"

That makes my ears itch. Let's compromise.

rhhardin said...

Who is almost always acceptable for whom.

The exception is fronted prepositions

For whom the bell tolls.

But who does the bell toll for is okay.

It's called descriptive grammar, the study of the hidden rules about what sounds wrong.

ampersand said...

Make everyone write their preferred pronoun on their underwear. Then make them wear their underwear on the outside so we'll know. Shithead is a good enough pronoun for Trudeau.