Help pass transgender rights through the Senate

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Ian

A private members bill was narrowly passed by the House of Commons a few weeks ago that seeks to add gender identity and gender expression to Canada’s Human Rights Act. This would essentially prevent future discrimination against transgendered people across the country.

However, the bill isn’t law yet, and has to pass the federal Senate before it gets ascent.

Luckily, many of the Conservative senators seem to be onside (including one lesbian and a board member for LGBT group Egale), and it seems likely that a free vote will be held. Unluckily, priority is being given to a long line of government bills, which are holding up the queue.

If an election is called this bill will have to start from square one again, and its sponsor, NDP MP Bill Siksay, is retiring from politics.

So send a message to our senators telling them to support Bill C-389 before that happens. You can use the form letter here, or write your own.

If you need any more convincing to support this bill, remember that religious-wingnut Charles McVety opposes it, and anything he’s opposed to is generally a good thing.

I guess they’re not all rotten

Posted on December 9, 2010 by Ian

If you talk with me long enough, eventually I’ll probably call Stephen Harper and his band of merry Conservatives a group of right-wing theocrats, set on overturning universal human rights in favour of Biblically-inspired (im)morality.

But that’s a gross oversimplification, and like other Ian’s recent admission that the Pope isn’t always pure evil (except he is), I must admit that not every MP in Harper’s cabal is a wingnut.

…five Conservative MPs—Heritage Minister James Moore, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, and parliamentary secretaries Shelly Glover, Sylvie Boucher and Gerald Keddy–voted in favour of an NDP-sponsored bill that would enhance the rights of transsexuals and transgender individuals.

The private-member’s bill, introduced by New Democrat MP Bill Siksay, passed by a vote of 143 to 131, despite the opposition of most Conservative MPs.

The bill would add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in the sentencing and hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

It’s very rare that Harper allows a free vote, although private member bills are traditionally free, so perhaps he doesn’t see this as a large threat.

You can check out the Hansard record for the full list of votes, NDP leader Jack Layton, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and Bloc Quebcois leader Gilles Duceppe were all there to vote yea, while Harper was absent for the vote. Of course Harper’s been absent for a total of 62 votes already, beaten only by 4 Liberals and newly independent MP Helena Geurgis. Note that Michael Ignatieff apparently has much better things to do than democracy, having missed a whopping 104 times thus far.

The right to die

Posted on September 9, 2010 by Ian

There’s an article in the Montreal Gazette yesterday that discusses a couple families that faced different situations with regards to assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The first family became a member smaller when a husband took his life after suffering from multiple sclerosis. The other family dealt for years with a member who wanted to die but after months finally stopped speaking of dying.

Both families were testifying before a dying with dignity panel, which was discussing whether euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The panel has no legal ability to change the current federal legislation that makes euthanasia illegal.

I think there’s a very strong case for humanists to get behind the fight for the decriminalization/legalization of euthanasia, and it’s something we should start getting vocal for.

Thirty-forty years ago it was humanists, like Henry Morgentaler, who fought hard to decriminalize abortion in Canada. They’re post-religious ethics taught us that a woman’s right to choose is greater than ill-conceived religious notions of the sanctity of a parasitic cluster of cells (not to denigrate parasitic clusters of cells – you and I were one once).

With euthanasia comes the fundamental question of who gets to decide what you do with your body and your life.

While I personally don’t support the right for anyone to walk into a clinic when they feel like to kill themselves (since they may have legal dependents or may be suffering from treatable mental illness), I do think that there is a point when a rational person can decide that dying is a better option than living.

The limits that the first family request for assisted suicide consist of “written demands from a patient and never a doctor, be available only to those suffering from incurable and debilitating illnesses, supported by medical and psychological evaluations, and only after a long delay to rule out other solutions.”

Of course any such framework is subject to debate and revision, but I think that it’s time that we start pushing for such changes, and I think that humanists (and atheists) are in the prime position to fight for these rights and freedoms.

Do we have a moral obligation to fight in Afghanistan?

Posted on August 27, 2010 by Ian

The war in Afghanistan that is being fought by Canada, the USA and others is a very murky issue.

The grounds for the war was as an act of self-defence by the USA after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The justifications is pretty shaky, but we’re there now, and we’ve toppled a regime, so the question is, when is the war over?

Like the majority of Canadians, I have been unimpressed with the mounting causalities of both civilian and Canadian troops, and the seeming pointlessness of the conflict.

The government is demonstrably corrupt, the Taliban still holds sway over many regions, and WikiLeaks has confirmed that a lot goes on that we don’t know about.

It’s very easy to throw your arms up and say we have no business being there.

But then a story like this comes along and I have to stop.

Taliban militants stoned a young couple to death for adultery after they ran away from their families in northern Afghanistan, officials said Monday.

…

The woman, Sadiqa, was 20 years old and engaged to another man, said the Kunduz provincial police chief, Gen. Abdul Raza Yaqoubi. Her lover, 28-year-old Qayum, left his wife to run away with her, and the two had holed up in a friend’s house five days ago, said district government head Mohammad Ayub Aqyar.

They were discovered by Taliban operatives on Sunday and stoned to death in front a crowd of about 150 men, Aqyar said.

One hundred and fifty men (notice no women were present) watched, and likely even cheered, as two human beings were beaten to death with rocks.

I’d like to believe that if I were being beaten by thugs with rocks in downtown Vancouver with 150 people around that someone would at least call the police, if not intervene.

Perhaps I’m still questioning pacifism after finishing Hitch-22, but I see this story as a metaphor for what’s happening internationally. My honest first reaction to this story, after recoiling from the brutality of it, was that it justified our staying their to help establish peace, security and fundamental human rights.

Human rights are being abused in Afghanistan (and many other countries), and just like that young couple, no one is willing to step in and stop the madness.

Of course the objections come quick. “Who are you to intervene in a foreign country’s internal affairs?” “What right do you have?” etc.

This shallow morality and extremist cultural relativism is beginning to frustrate me. We would not tell a child who stopped a bully that he had no right to interfere in their private business. We do not chastise people who call the cops when they hear neighbours beating their wives and children.

Human rights are universal.

They either apply to everyone, everywhere, always, or they are not truly universal.

The other objection that sparks to mind is the belittling excuse that some populations are not ready for democracy and freedoms yet. This statement feels insulting and denigrating to the millions of people being subjugated to tyranny against their wills.

But don’t mistake my words. I am not giving a blanket moral endorsement to US expansionism into any country it deems immoral. The proper course of action when you witness a crime is to call the police. I am also not denying the right of people to govern themselves, however, we do not have to tolerate intolerant fascist and fanatical regimes.

And I will admit that our global police force, as represented by the United Nations Peacekeeping force, is grossly inadequate to handle any and all human rights abuses everywhere. Perhaps Paul Kurtz’s global parliament would be helpful in this situation (as diplomacy is always preferable to militancy).

I post this here because I believe these are issues that secularists need to defend. No one has the right to stone another human being to death against their will, and we ought to be ashamed at people who would let such atrocities happen un-denounced.