So what does Bill C-16 say?
A federal bill passed last June that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression had been hotly contested by critics who called it a drastic restriction on free speech rights.
Now, just five months after it became law, Bill C-16 has its first big controversy — and it shows how the legislation is being misinterpreted in practice. Here, for the record, is what Bill C-16 does and doesn’t do when it comes to debates on transgender issues.
❚ It only criminalizes extreme speech
C-16 added gender identity and expressions as a category for what counts under Canada’s hate- crime laws, which include calling for genocide or wilfully inciting hatred toward an identifiable group. The categories of colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation and mental or physical disability were already on the list of identifiable groups. The threshold for a conviction under these laws is high, and charges can only be laid with the approval of a province’s attorney general. The bill also added the targeting of gender identity and expression as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
❚ It changes the federal human rights code, but this doesn’t apply to university classrooms
C-16 added gender identity and e x pression as grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but this applies to people employed by or receiving services from federally regulated industries, such as banks or the public service. In other words, not a university.
❚ Could presenting Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s argument violate the Ontario Human Rights Code?
Nobody knows for sure, but it would be a stretch. A workplace, housing or service provider covered by the provincial code could be forced to pay a fine or change their practices if found to be discriminating on the matter of gender identity or expression. But it’s unclear how the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario would rule on a case involving pronoun use. The Ontario Human Rights Com- mission, which is separate from the tribunal and focuses on education, has a policy guideline saying that “refusing to refer to a person by their self- identified name and proper personal pronoun” could constitute gender- based harassment. But the commission also says cases involving pronouns and free speech require a balancing act. University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, who has extensively studied the legislation, strongly doubts that showing some clips as part of an academic debate would lead to a discrimination finding. “It is hard to imagine that a court would make such a finding,” she said. “The point of showing the video was to discuss the content of the ideas, and a court would have to balance the rights to non- discrimination with the values of academic freedom and freedom of expression.”
AM I SUPPOSED TO COMFORT (STUDENTS) AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE INSULATED AWAY FROM THIS? LIKE, IS THAT WHAT THE POINT OF THIS IS? BECAUSE TO ME, THAT IS SO AGAINST WHAT A UNIVERSITY IS ABOUT.
— LINDSAY SHEPHERD, WILFRID LAURIER TEACHING ASSISTANT