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
[–] 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