Transgender Ideology is “Totalitarian”

[Original Happy Camper]

IMHO Free Speech is not allowed for certain aspects of society.

"Wake Up to the Threat
A so-called “human rights tribunal” in Canada has just ruled that a Christian activist must pay $55,000 to a provincial politician because he referred to this politician as a “biological male” in a political pamphlet. The politician in question, Morgane Oger (born Ronan Oger), is a biological male. However, he has since “transitioned,” and is living his life as a “transgender woman.” According to the decision, Bill Whatcott must compensate Oger for injuring the latter’s “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The terrifying precedent set by this case can be illustrated by this one, flabbergasting fact: The judge in the case refused to allow Whatcott’s lawyer to offer testimony showing that, in point of fact, Oger is a biological male. According to the judge, “the ‘truth’ of [Whatcott’s] statements in the flyer is not a defense.” As such, said the judge, “evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue…”

Read that again. Let it sink in. Truth is not a defense. Evidence doesn’t matter. What matters – it would seem – is whether someone’s feelings are hurt."

https://www.hli.org/2019/04/totalitarian-transgender-ideology/

 

[TuxAme]

I have to be wary of any country that has a "human rights tribunal", Canada especially since they threw free speech out the window because facts were uttered.

 

[archer75]

Lotta people not interested in truth and facts these days.

 

[jgarden]

Transgender Ideology is “Totalitarian”

It speaks volumes that all 3 of the posts critical of the decision made by Canada's "so-called" human rights tribunal identify themselves as Americans.

The activities of the "Christian activist," which were presumably bankrolled with tax exempt funds, appear to have crossed the line when it attempts to bring into question the right of an elected official to hold public office based on their "biological gender!" (Morgane Oger/Ronan Oger, a transsexual city councillor in Vancouver)

The private sector would have no legal defence for calling out/dismissing Morgane Oger/Ronan Oger based on his/her former "biological gender" and transsexual status - so why shouldn't politicians be judged by their constituents by the same rules, instead of "dog whistle" campaigns based on sexual orientation!

 

[Yekcidmij]

It speaks volumes that all 3 of the posts critical of the decision made by Canada's "so-called" human rights tribunal identify themselves as Americans.

So they shouldn't discuss the issue if they aren't Canadian? Why?

The activities of the "Christian activist," which were presumably bankrolled with tax exempt funds, appear to have crossed the line when it attempts to bring into question the right of an elected official to hold public office based on their "biological gender!" (Morgane Oger/Ronan Oger, a transsexual city councillor in Vancouver)

So the person in question gets monetarily penalized for being dumb? I'm not clear on why a person should be fined for having a wrong opinion...

 

[FireDragon76]

Canada has a different legal system than in the US, obviously, but I don't really see this as totalitarian. It sounds more like compensation for slander/libel. This isn't just merely about using the wrong pronoun, but attacking someone's character and dignity.

 

[Chesterton]

It speaks volumes that all 3 of the posts critical of the decision made by Canada's "so-called" human rights tribunal identify themselves as Americans.

Could you give us a Cliff's Notes version of these volumes? Sounds really interesting.

 

[AACJ]

IMHO Free Speech is not allowed for certain aspects of society.

"Wake Up to the Threat
A so-called “human rights tribunal” in Canada has just ruled that a Christian activist must pay $55,000 to a provincial politician because he referred to this politician as a “biological male” in a political pamphlet. The politician in question, Morgane Oger (born Ronan Oger), is a biological male. However, he has since “transitioned,” and is living his life as a “transgender woman.” According to the decision, Bill Whatcott must compensate Oger for injuring the latter’s “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The terrifying precedent set by this case can be illustrated by this one, flabbergasting fact: The judge in the case refused to allow Whatcott’s lawyer to offer testimony showing that, in point of fact, Oger is a biological male. According to the judge, “the ‘truth’ of [Whatcott’s] statements in the flyer is not a defense.” As such, said the judge, “evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue…”

Read that again. Let it sink in. Truth is not a defense. Evidence doesn’t matter. What matters – it would seem – is whether someone’s feelings are hurt."

https://www.hli.org/2019/04/totalitarian-transgender-ideology/

Of course this is yet one more example of the fact that there is no such thing as worldview-neutral government. Worldviews compete for preeminence or dominance in government/society as evidenced not only by the OP's example but also other prominent examples, such as teachers being harassed or fired for not using certain student-preferred pronouns and Darwinian evolution being only allowed in many classrooms.

Secular humanism is not overly fond of proposed or supposed neutrality or compromise with other worldviews or belief systems.

Christians should endeavor to repeat these facts wherever they can and as often as they can.

Pray Christians. Fight Christians. For what? For the preeminence of the Christian worldview of course--at all levels of society.

Remember, we are the salt and light of the earth. What does that include? God Almighty has chose to work through His people to bring forth true good in society.

 

[Romans 8]

I agree this is totalitarian. The accused referred to the accuser as a biological male, which he is. He was born a male. How is stating reality an offense?

 

[Romans 8]

It speaks volumes that all 3 of the posts critical of the decision made by Canada's "so-called" human rights tribunal identify themselves as Americans.

How does it speak wonders? I agree with them. I think most of Canadians would as well. A mental illness should not be celebrated nor entertained. I cannot believe how many Christians are brainwashed by the transgender facade. You are being deceived by the devil. The LGBT agenda is a product of the enemy. This is totally anti-biblical.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's nothing about being a Christian that requires abusing another human being to make a cheap polemical point. As somebody wisely said a long time ago, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". I learned that back when I was a young kid. Why do Christians throw wisdom like this out the door in the name of following Jesus? Did Jesus ever command us to forgo a basic sense of compassion and decency? I don't think so. That's simply a misreading of the entire Bible.

 

[Romans 8]

There's nothing about being a Christian that requires abusing another human being to make a cheap polemical point. As somebody wisely said a long time ago, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". I learned that back when I was a young kid. Why do Christians throw wisdom like this out the door in the name of following Jesus? Did Jesus ever command us to forgo a basic sense of compassion and decency? I don't think so. That's simply a misreading of the entire Bible.

I'm not sure I understand the ordeal. He called the individual a "biological male" of which he is. He simply stated a fact. Why are people so offended? It makes no sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure I understand the ordeal. He called the individual a "biological male" of which he is. He simply stated a fact. Why are people so offended? It makes no sense.

That perspective is insensitive. You may think its true, and I'm not here to argue that, but your notion of truth is not all that matters when relating to other people.

 

[Yekcidmij]

That perspective is insensitive.

Do you think he should have been fined for it?

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you think he should have been fined for it?

It's not my country. I'm just pointing out another perspective other than jumping at the notion this is particularly totalitarian. Real organizations that measure Christian persecution don't even put Canada on the list. This isn't religious persecution, it's just the result of responsible government in the British tradition.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's not my country.

Right, but it's still an interesting question. Should people be fined for being insensitive or having wrong opinions or being dumb? I don't think they should. Do you?

I'm just pointing out another perspective other than jumping at the notion this is particularly totalitarian.

It looks to me that if he was fined for the reasons listed above, then it was a little bit totalitarian.

It's also possible (perhaps likely) that I don't have all the necessary facts to conclusive say one way or another since the source we're discussing is (from what I can tell ) a random website and group I don't know anything about.

Real organizations that measure Christian persecution don't even put Canada on the list.

Why isn't this group a "real organization" and what constitutes a "real organization?" (Noting that you may indeed be correct)

This isn't religious persecution, it's just the result of responsible government in the British tradition.

If he's being fined for actual/real religious convictions, why wouldn't it be religious persecution?

 

[Romans 8]

That perspective is insensitive. You may think its true, and I'm not here to argue that, but your notion of truth is not all that matters when relating to other people.

What should we do with someone that calls someone else a name they don't like? Fine them tens of thousands of dollars? Put them in jail? This is coming. You support this?

 

[TuxAme]

That perspective is insensitive. You may think its true, and I'm not here to argue that, but your notion of truth is not all that matters when relating to other people.

We don't "think" that it's true, these are simply the facts of the case- and apparently calling a spade a spade is illegal in Canada if the spade claims to be a diamond.

 

[Arcangl86]

For those curious, here is the actual decision. It's long, but my read of it is that the OP is inaccurate or misleading at best. He wasn't fined because he called her a "biological male." He was fined because his flyer was seen as discriminatory because it was saying she was unfit for political office for no other reason than her gender identity. The US is fairly unique in how we treat free speech. Most other countries which have free speech are more likely to balance the right to speak your mind with other people's rights. https://www.massresistance.org/docs...es3/58_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf

And as for the complaint about truth not being a defense, the Tribunal was working based on a previous Supreme Court case.

I agree with the argument that the quest for truth is an essential
component of the “marketplace of ideas” which is, itself, central to a
strong democracy. The search for truth is also an important part of self‐
fulfillment. However, I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to
find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.
Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise
presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech.
As Dickson C.J. stated in Keegstra, at p. 763, there is “very little chance
that statements intended to promote hatred against an identifiable group
are true, or that their vision of society will lead to a better world”. To the
extent that truthful statements are used in a manner or context that
exposes a vulnerable group to hatred, their use risks the same potential
harmful effects on the vulnerable groups that false statements can
provoke. The vulnerable group is no less worthy of protection because
the publisher has succeeded in turning true statements into a hateful
message. In not providing for a defence of truth, the legislature has said
that even truthful statements may be expressed in language or context
that exposes a vulnerable group to hatred. [paras. 140‐141]

 

[FireDragon76]

For those curious, here is the actual decision. It's long, but my read of it is that the OP is inaccurate or misleading at best. He wasn't fined because he called her a "biological male." He was fined because his flyer was seen as discriminatory because it was saying she was unfit for political office for no other reason than her gender identity. The US is fairly unique in how we treat free speech. Most other countries which have free speech are more likely to balance the right to speak your mind with other people's rights. https://www.massresistance.org/docs...es3/58_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf

And as for the complaint about truth not being a defense, the Tribunal was working based on a previous Supreme Court case.

As usual, evangelicals caught playing fast and loose with facts.