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.
When I saw this, I was hoping against hope that it would be Benita fucking Pederson.
Fuck this woman. She’s an evil, manipulative blight on humanity.
How dare they… checks notes paint a crosswalk?
This is really what people are getting upset about? (Yes, I know it’s just thinly veiled anti-trans nonsense, but come on, it’s paint on a road).
I never know how to feel about this law.
I foresee one day the Polievres of the world winning an election, and claiming trans rights are an attack on children’s gender or that being pro choice is an anti-woman or anti-natal identity attack or some shit like that. It worries me and while I generally trust our judges, it’s difficult to trust them long term on such openly interpretable law.
Tearing down someone’s pride flag I see as being a clear hate speech type crime. Protesting against adding rainbow crossing probably not. Even if that flyer was completely unhinged and inappropriate — I can go downtown and find similarly stupid and insane (but less bigoted) posters any day of the year. It speaks more to me of awful mental healthcare and hygiene than anything.
I wish they’d publish the content of the flyer so I can judge it though instead of it being covered up.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. I won’t argue against all the anti-trans people needing some help. heh
Transphobes hate Canada so much.
If you’re politically active, this law will be used against you.
