Democracy Involves Scrutiny: CHP Canada vs. City of Hamilton
Tue, June 25, 2024 | Author: Jim Enos | Volume 31 Issue 26 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter
The judicial review regarding the City of Hamilton’s refusal of CHP Canada’s bus shelter ad is now scheduled for one full day, during the week of October 28, in Hamilton, ON. Who would have thought that the day would come when an ad reading ‘Woman: An Adult Female’ would be banned from public space?
In the factum filed by the City, their bottom line argument seems to be that public scrutiny of trans-ideology results in harm toward the trans-community. In arguing this, is the City not suggesting that public policy on some topics is not open to public scrutiny because disagreeing publicly on an individual’s or a group’s belief system brings harm? If this is to be the ground rule moving forward, then it appears that, in order to have one’s belief system enshrined in public policy and sheltered from public scrutiny, one simply declares that belief system to be based on an immutable human characteristic and of such a sensitive nature that public scrutiny arising from critical thinking may cause harm to those who share that belief. An example of this is trans-ageism, an imaginary belief that someone is older or younger than their actual age; well, they are not. The individual or group who best plays the victim is declared the winner, and all naysayers are considered bullies.
Recently, a pastor said, “The ultimate goal of humanistic culture is to cancel God,” and he is right. Not only is Canadian governance cancelling God at every level, it is criminalizing the teaching of God’s precepts for living, not only publicly, but privately in our homes. We need only think of the infamous Bill C-4; the bill that led to the criminalization of parents who counsel their children to express their gender in conformity with their God-given, biologically defined gender.
Ruling out public scrutiny (rooted in critical thinking) is nothing other than tyranny in compassion’s clothing. In particular, when discussing the matter of trans-ideology, the City of Hamilton is shutting down the public display of the medical fact that women are adult females, as determined by the chromosomes in the womb at 6 weeks of pregnancy. The City intends to argue that CHP Canada’s expression of a definition found in most dictionaries is not inclusive of males who wish to identify as female, and that public expression of this definition will not be welcoming to them; the setting aside of medical facts in favour of feelings.
Below is an excerpt from a web page for AlphaBiolabs:
“Today a mother can know the gender of their child 6 weeks into the pregnancy with a simple blood test. If fetal DNA can be found within the mother’s bloodstream, a technique known as Next Generation Sequencing is used to look for any Y-chromosomal DNA. Because the Y chromosome is specific to males, any presence in the fetal DNA is indicative of a baby boy. If fetal DNA is detected without a Y chromosome it would suggest a baby girl.”
Gender is determined in the womb by chromosomes and is immutable; wishing to be the opposite gender does not trump the facts.
The City will argue that the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) states:
“…it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province.”
While this is true, recognizing the dignity and worth of every person does not imply agreeing with or endorsing the belief system of every person nor being silent about your dissension from another person’s belief system; if this were the case, then the cancelling of God in public school would contravene the OHRC. As another matter of fact, the OHRC does recognize and make exemption for the difference between gender identity/expression and gender/sex under the Exemptions section of the Code (the Law):
Restriction of facilities by sex
20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 20 (1).
It is not illegal to restrict the use of services or facilities to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency. Wishing or imagining one’s self to be the opposite sex/gender does not imply that one may enter opposite sex/gender intimate facilities such as washrooms, change rooms and showers, which are sex-segregated on the ground of public decency.
Further, CHP Canada will refer to an Ontario Human Rights Policy document, ‘Competing Human Rights,’ which in the summary states:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial human rights legislation (including the Ontario Human Rights Code) and the courts recognize that no rights are absolute and no one right is more important than another right. Our laws guarantee rights such as freedom of expression as well as protection against discrimination and harassment based on gender, creed, sexual orientation and disability, among other grounds. They require we give all rights equal consideration. The law also recognizes that rights have limits in some situations where they substantially interfere with the rights of others.”
Requiring Canadians to set aside medical facts regarding sex/gender and to be silent in public about these facts substantially interferes with the rights of critical thinkers and has the potential to harm children and youth by misleading them to follow a path of irreversible medical intervention.
Democratic nations must keep public scrutiny of public policy alive and well, else tyranny will reign.
CHP Canada will keep public scrutiny alive. Join the movement! Join CHP Canada.
Share to Gab
Other Commentary by Jim Enos:
- La démocratie implique un examen minutieux : PHC Canada contre la ville d’Hamilton
- Democracy Involves Scrutiny: CHP Canada vs. City of Hamilton
- La liberté de « définir la femme » devant les tribunaux
- Freedom to ‘Define Woman’ Heading to Court
- Toutes choses n’étant pas égales
- All Things Not Being Equal
- S’il n’y a Pas de Route du Tout
- If There Is No Road at All
- Démolir les arguments
- Demolishing Arguments
- Éviter le prévisible
- Avoiding the Predictable