121
She spouted anti-trans lies to oppose a rainbow crosswalk. Now she’s facing consequences. (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a hearing convened by Canada’s Alberta Human Rights Tribunal on Monday, the lawyer for an anti-transgender advocate in the small town of Westlock (90 miles north of Edmonton), argued that a flyer distributed by her client calling on residents to protest the installation of a rainbow crosswalk with a trans flag was not hate speech, but an exercise in “free speech.”

“Could it be upsetting? Yes. Could it cause hurt feelings? Yes. But does it cause a person to feel hatred or contempt for trans individuals? We will say the answer to that question is a resounding no,” attorney Allison Pejovic said in opening remarks at the hearing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I never know how to feel about this law.

I foresee one day the Polievres of the world winning an election, and claiming trans rights are an attack on children’s gender or that being pro choice is an anti-woman or anti-natal identity attack or some shit like that. It worries me and while I generally trust our judges, it’s difficult to trust them long term on such openly interpretable law.

Tearing down someone’s pride flag I see as being a clear hate speech type crime. Protesting against adding rainbow crossing probably not. Even if that flyer was completely unhinged and inappropriate — I can go downtown and find similarly stupid and insane (but less bigoted) posters any day of the year. It speaks more to me of awful mental healthcare and hygiene than anything.

I wish they’d publish the content of the flyer so I can judge it though instead of it being covered up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

    Protesting against adding rainbow crossing probably not.

    Blithely perhaps. But surely they have reasons for protesting. I'm assuming these reasons aren't pedestrian safety, fiscal cost due to wear & tear, or aesthetic merits. Logically speaking if one is protesting colours of paint, because of other people, it can only be because they hate those people.

    At a certain point we have to remember that fascism always seeks to usurp the spirit of laws by threatening us with the letters of the laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    I don’t disagree, I just worry a lot about that last point you made. This could easily become a cudgel for all sorts of things that worry me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago*

    Yea fair. I actually just reworded it slightly.

    At a certain point we have to remember that fascism always seeks to usurp the spirit of laws by threatening us with the letters of the laws.

    It's already a cudgel. Pro-ICE kid that got hit full video. Quantitatively speaking, I don't think what you're concerned about is even a blip on the radar compared to the social harm already being experienced every day. Like yes people could go to jail under a 'bad government' but like conservatism is literally killing the planet. I'll cross that other bridge if we even get there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I wish they’d publish the content of the flyer

    Well, there is this from the article:

    Pederson also detailed the goals of what she called the “transgender agenda” in the flyer, including “de-population” and an effort “to confuse children about gender and sexuality.”

    “Your children will be rendered infertile and unable to reproduce, become patients for life that require never-ending medical treatment, and live a shortened lifespan,” the flyer read, describing gender-affirming care as “chemical castration and genital mutilation.”

    Seems pretty clear to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    This seems thoroughly in the “this person is mentally unwell and needs immediate help” category.

    I hate all the anti trans propaganda people eat up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago

    There’s a legal defence for that argument too, though (“not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”), but the lawyer was trying to argue that it was not hate speech. For the judge to accept that argument would set the wrong precedent.

    I.e., both can be true, even legally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent