The Day 37 British Columbia MLAs Tried to Advance a Bill to Eliminate Your Basic Human Rights (donshafer1.substack.com)

submitted 1 day ago by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(That day was February 26, 2026)

The vote was 50 against. 37 in favour.

Names, districts, and email addresses of all MLAs voting 'yea' included

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] stoopidisthenewsmart@lemmy.ca 5 points 15 hours ago

I live near this jackass and know people that have had to deal with his nonsense. He has been a school trustee and used his position of power to make anyone not identifying as cisgenderd in the district a living hell. This isn't about free speech this is about Human Rights. The messaging from the Conservatives has been about free speech, this is a misdirect.

[-] fourish@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

How about a snapshot of the parties as well please?

I could care less what scumbag cons do. No time at all for them. But any NDP or greens voting for it should be turfed out.

[-] Carload834@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

I went through the list on the linked website. I just highlighted each name and riding, right-clicked and google searched and found out their party affiliation fairly quickly (well, doing that 37 times was a bit time consuming). No NDP or Green party members voted in favour.

[-] foggoblin@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

Gross. But I do understand the tradition of not voting down on first reading. But Armstrong seems to constantly introduce bills that have no chance of proceeding as a dog whistle / fundraising mechanism with her Trumpish base.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

But I do understand the tradition of not voting down on first reading.

Tradition shouldn’t come before a basic filter for platforming hate

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Welcome to Lemmy.

[-] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

This is disgusting, they're not even trying to hide how corrupt they are anymore.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Armstrong’s bill was motivated by a recent $750,000 fine issued by the BC Human Rights Tribunal against former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld over his comments about LGBTQ people.

This seems pretty complicated and messy, as it does seem someone is being fined 750k for their speech, which sounds like the bill being revoked is the thing removing free speech rights. Given this article lacks any detail or nuance does anyone have any real specifics?

[-] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 2 points 20 hours ago

They're just unhappy that the law has something to say about their bigotry.

Here's an explainer with a link to the decision: https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/former-bc-school-trustee-ordered-to-pay-750k-in-discrimination-hate-speech-complaint/

What they're really after is the elimination of tennant's rights so the wealthy can trample over more people, but that's just my speculation.

[+] maplesaga@lemmy.world -8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Saying there is two genders isnt free speech, they have to conform their beliefs you mean, and be forced to believe there is a gender like Ze and Zer?

It just seems a bit shariah to me.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

and I hope Im not fined for saying so.

lol poor soul, must be so hard living under the threat of persecution!!

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

Why is it desirable to be fined that much for something most people don't even agree on.

How many genders are there, ask anyone off the street and you'll get a random number. Because as they say its not real, its a construct, and being fined 750k for a construct is ridiculous on its face.

Without the smarmyness convince me that it makes sense.

[-] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago

It just seems a bit shariah to me

Sounds a bit Islamaphobic to me

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, of all the things to criticize shariah for (such as its treatment of women and queer people), this guy chose to compare it to the wOkE mInD vIrUs™ because apparently it has so much in common with... checks notes... respecting gender diversity?

He couldn't pick just one group to hate while remaining ideologically consistent, he had to go full delusional so that he could hate both muslims and queers...

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago

I'm pretty sure shariah isn't forcing anyone to respect trans rights.

BC fined a person in a position of authority for making harmful comments about a vulnerable minority.

If the mayor got fined for saying hateful things about black or indigenous people, would you be crying about "free speech"?

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

Well it seems as though gender is a construct, forcing people to believe some spiritual and pseudoscientific jargon isn't the same as shariah?

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

Everything is a social construct, from the languages we speak to the base-10 numeral systems we consider standard, and the units of measurements we use to describe the universe and everything it contains.

And no, shariah is specifically a theocratic legal system based on the authority of muslim religious scholars called imams to write and enforce laws based on the Quran and the Hadith. It's not the same thing at all, no matter how many layers of mental gymnastics you pass it through in an effort to contort reality into some semblance of what you want it to be.

Using religion to justify pigeonholing everyone into one of two mutually exclusive categories and discriminating against anyone who doesn't fit within those norms is far closer to being "spiritual and pseudoscienctific jargon" than simply saying "everyone's choices for how to identify and present themselves relative to the social construct of gender should be respected, especially by the authorities," but since that conflicts with your preferred narrative I don't expect you to actually be able to see things from that broader perspective.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

OK how many genders are there, what correct answer should not be a finable offense, answer me that and I'll relent. Perhaps I'm just unaware of the scientific consensus number, and I'll admit my ignorance and bigotry.

If its "anything but 2" then obviously that is ridiculous.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You're asking the wrong questions in an attempt to make it sound more ridiculous than it is. It's not about reaching some scientific consensus of the exact number of genders that exist.

You said it yourself, gender is a social construct. So why limit it to just two and exactly two? Because you want to dictate who and what everyone else can be?

If gender is a social construct, and you want to be entirely objective, then there are zero genders. Gender is just a myth. From a subjective point of view, gender describes how a person identifies, presents, and expresses oneself, in which case there are as many genders as people identify as.

The "scientific consensus" is that there are at least three biological sexes, and that sex is a spectrum in which male and female provide the two polarities, and intersex describes anything in between. Gender, on the other hand, being a social construct, is more in the realm of sociology, and not the place for making concrete scientific assertions that impose extrinsic limitations on individual expression. From the perspective of psychology, an individual's gender identity should be respected, acknowledged, and affirmed, because this has been shown to have the best outcomes out of all the treatment options.

As far as "finable offense" goes, you're really missing the point. Average Joe Schmoe at the local dive bar isn't going to get a ticket for saying there's only two genders. He'd just be wrong, and people might avoid him, or maybe even argue with him, but he's not going to get fined over it.

If you're entrusted as a public servant in a position of authority, with potentially hundreds or even thousands of people whose day-to-day lives depend on your decisions, then you're responsible for the ways in which your words impact those people's lives, you should be held to a higher standard, and you have a duty to govern your personal conduct accordingly. Someone in such a position making comments that deliberately exclude a vulnerable minority group and invalidate their personal identities causes harm, and shouldn't be treated as protected political speech because it's not done in the capacity of a private citizen but as a representative of the state.