Posted on 06/21/2017 3:47:23 PM PDT by fwdude
All it needs now is “royal consent” from the House of Commons, and Canada will become the proud owner of a brand-new form of tyranny: punishing normal folks for using the wrong “gender pronouns” for people who don’t know what they are.
Daily Caller writes:
Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the governor general.
Justin Trudeau ✔ @JustinTrudeau
Great news: Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove
7:53 PM - 15 Jun 2017
Fines, jail time, compulsory “sensitivity training”–these can now be yours! All you have to do is call a man “him” when he’d rather be called “her.” The new “crimes” have been tacked onto the Human Rights Code, by a vote of 67-11 in the Senate.
“Great news!” exults Canada’s neo-Stalinist prime minister, Justin Trudeau. He also has a thingy on his Twitter, “#LoveisLove,” whatever the devil that means.
Overheard in prison cell: “So what are you guys in for?” “Armed robbery.” “I stole a couple cars.” “Aggravated assault.” And then, “Well, me, I got 18 months for using the wrong gender pronoun.” Shocked silence descends upon the convicted criminals.
And the people of Canada just take it, as usual. Right on the chin. There’s no outrage the Left can impose on normal people that inspires opposition.
That’s the biggest mystery of all.
We taught Texans how to be be Texan.
Hell, we had a fort whoopup back in the day. That was it’s actual name.
Your points might apply to some Parliamentary governments -- but, not Canada's. FWIW:
1) We have a written Constitution -- always have, although it didn't include the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" until 1982.
2) Before we got the CoR&F, there was no question that "Parliament is supreme" (that was an oft-spoken phrase). With the written constitution, we have experienced the same Judicial overreach that Americans have. IOW, the SCOC has acted much like the SCOTUS. Which is more "tyrannical": rule by elected representatives of a minority, or rule by 9 appointed quasi-aristocrats? (Rhetorical question -- they're each worse than the other.)
3. We haven't had a federal government that was supported by 50% +1 votes in decades. Typically, a Parliamentary majority can be secured with about 40% of the votes. The reason: we have 3 major, 2 minor, and over a dozen also-ran parties, at the federal level. (Please note, I realize that this makes your point stronger.)
“All it needs now is “royal consent” from the House of Commons...”
I don’t have anything to add to the substantive comments on this travesty others have made here — but, in the interest of accuracy (or something):
The correct terminology is “royal assent”; and, as the name suggests, it involves the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) signing off on a bill passed by Parliament (which, btw, includes both the House of Commons, and the Senate).
BTW, the Queen rarely exercises a veto power similar to the U.S. President’s. (By “rarely”, I mean never in the past hundred and fifty years or so; but, it is still a theoretical possibility. Of course, if a veto were exercised, that would probably mean the end of the Monarchy.) IOW, Royal assent is a given.
Parliamentary systems have other weaknesses as well, which I have not touched on. More problematic for me is a system where the government is formed via compromises made after the vote, as opposed to knowing what those compromises are and working through them in a primary process to decide who is going to be in the Big Tent in the first place.
Contrary to what is taught in US Civics classes, the American Founders did not envision a Supreme Court with the authority to nullify laws. They imagined a much weaker form of judicial review that permitted triers of fact and law to reduce laws to a nullity only on a case basis, a remedy that already existed in the common law.
The Federalists, fearing the radicalism of Jefferson and his party, thought they'd found a bulwark in John Adams' midnight appointments to the Federal bench.
I believe they are turning in their graves at the result of John Marshall's subsequent overreach. You should have learned from our mistake.
Sounds like an updated verse for “Alice’s Restaurant”.
Time for a wall on the north border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.