NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) was, at one time, the legislative assistant to former NDP (and fellow homosexual) MP Svend Robinson. The latter was forced to resign his parliamentary seat because he stole a $64,500 ring on display at a public auction, (See REALity March/April, 2005 “Svend Robinson Staging His Comeback”).
It seems Mr. Siksay learned a thing or two about political strategy and game playing while at Mr. Robinson’s side. This conclusion is based on the fact that Mr. Siksay replayed exactly the strategy Mr. Robinson used in pushing through his controversial private member’s Bill C-250 in 2002, which provided that sexual orientation be included in the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code S. 319. This controversial Bill C-250 was passed by devious means and Mr. Siksay’s private members Bill C-389 on the transgendered seems to be following exactly the same path.
For example, Mr. Robinson brought his bill forward for second reading close to the House of Commons adjourning for summer recess on May 29, 2002. There were only 15 MPs in the House at the time - only two members of the then Canadian Alliance party were present, the rest being Liberals and NDP MPs. Mr. Cauchon, the Liberal Minister of Justice, backed Mr. Robinson’s private member’s bill and, through agreement with Mr. Robinson, the Liberal MPs present joined the NDP MPs to pass Mr. Robinson’s bill at second reading, as well as to push it to, and through, the Justice Committee. (See REALity Sept/Oct 2003, p.1.)
MP Siksay’s Bill on the Transgendered
The purpose of Mr. Siksay’s private member’s bill on the transgendered, Bill C-389, is to amend the federal Human Rights Act and the hate provisions in the Criminal Code, to give specific protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression”, as prohibited grounds of discrimination. That is, this bill would provide transgendered, transsexuals and gender non-conforming individuals with protection as their human right. Significantly, the expression “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the bill.
(Transsexuals are individuals, who believe they were born the wrong sex. Transgendered, is an umbrella term to cover a variety of behaviour, including that of drag queens and cross-dressers, etc.)
MP Siksay’s Bill C-389 Rushed Through House of Commons
The first hour of debate on Bill C-389 was on May 10, 2010. It was the fourth time in six years, that MP Siksay had introduced the bill. The bill was, as is customary, placed at the bottom of the list of private member’s bill, but miraculously reappeared for second reading less than a month later on June 8, 2010. MP Siksay had apparently done some serious trading with other MPs on the timing of his private member’s bill. Like MP Robinson’s Bill C-250, the debate on MP Siksay’s Bill C-389 occurred immediately before the House rose for summer recess. Consequently, scarcely any MPs were sitting in the Commons during the debate on second reading – NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs were there, and happily supported the bill. Only one Conservative MP, Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg, Haute-Saint-Charles), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, spoke against the bill on June 8, 2010, arguing that the vague language in the bill was unacceptable. He stated:
… guaranteeing additional protection for one minority group can have unwanted social and legal consequences for another group. We must know the exact repercussions of legislative amendments and we were not given this information by the member who sponsored the bill.
He went on to say:
… the amendments proposed by Bill C-389 are vague and undefined.
… it is important to note that the term “expression” is nowhere to be found in the list of protected rights [in the Canadian Human Rights Act.]
… when we look at the changes proposed in Bill C-389, none of these terms are defined. As a result, we cannot be sure of the meaning of “gender expression” and how it might be interpreted by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the courts.
Despite these concerns, the bill passed second reading, with few if any Conservatives in attendance. (Where was the Conservative House Leader that day, that he didn’t get the troops out for the vote?) The Bill has now been sent to the Justice Committee for review. The Justice Committee, like all other Committees, is dominated by opposition MPs due to a minority Parliament, so the bill’s destiny is uncertain.
That is, everything hinges on whether Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff orders a “whipped” vote on the bill, i.e. that he require all Liberal MPs to vote for the bill as a matter of party policy. Certainly, the NDP and Bloc Quebecois will all vote for the bill. Although it is unusual for a party leader to order a “whipped” vote on a private member’s bill, this occurred with the Liberals on Mr. Robinson’s Bill C-250 in 2002. Therefore, such an action is not unprecedented by any means.
Since the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression”, are not defined in Mr. Siksay’s bill, one can justifiably be concerned as to how the human rights tribunals and the courts will interpret them. It is quite possible that the term “gender expression” will be interpreted to protect anyone who may “think” he/she is another sex, whether or not he/she had hormonal treatment or surgery or not.
Transgendered and Transsexuals Have a Psychological Problem
Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore, Maryland at one time was the leading authority on transsexual surgery. It carried out the requested surgeries, even though such surgery merely changed the external sexual parts, such as providing an artificial vagina or penis, neither of which functioned as such since the internal reproductive structure remained the same, as does the person’s DNA and chromosomes. Johns Hopkins conducted follow-up studies and found that these surgically altered individuals were no happier or well adjusted after all the hormone and surgical treatment than before. These people had much the same problems with relationships, work and emotions as before. Clearly, the hope that, after their treatments, they would emerge from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically was not fulfilled. In addition, unfortunate post-surgical male subjects were, in fact, caricatures of women with their large hands, prominent Adam’s apples and thick facial features, which become more pronounced with age. High heels, copious makeup and flamboyant clothes do not deny the obvious. Therefore, authorities at Johns Hopkins Hospital concluded that to assist with surgery and hormone treatment was to fundamentally cooperate with these individuals’ mental illness. Johns Hopkins hospital ceased providing such treatment. (See REALity July/August 2004 “Homosexuals’ New Agenda – Transsexualism”.)
Transsexuals and Transgendered Need Help
We should not pretend that changing gender identity is an answer to transgendered and transsexuals’ problems. Instead, these people need our compassion and concern and also treatment in the form of counselling in order to deal with their delusions.
What Will be the Effect if Bill C-389 Passes?
The major effect of this bill is that transgendered, transsexual and sexually confused individuals will be given full protection re employment, services, housing, etc. in public institutions under federal jurisdiction. That is, their obvious oddities will be “normalized”, and accepted and protected under the law. Even without surgery, an individual who “thinks” he/she is another gender may be entitled to use the washroom of his/her “perceived” gender. Medical health plans will be required to pay the costs of surgery and hormone treatment (approximately $20-$30,000 at a minimum). Even federal penitentiary inmates will be provided with treatment at their request. After the treatment, a few problems will arise as to whether he or she should be in a male or female penitentiary.
If this bill becomes law, we can expect the provinces to be heavily pressured to rapidly follow the federal lead, and as a result, school children will be taught in school that even “thinking” you are another gender is normal, acceptable and reasonable.
In summary, some of the consequences of this bill if passed into law are as follows:
Federal institutions, such as banks, the military, penitentiaries, the RCMP, ships under federal jurisdiction etc. will be forced to hire or retain a male who dresses as a female or vice versa.
Children will be allowed to be taught, to their confusion, by a woman who has had sex change surgery and has become a man.
Governments will be required to rent property to “drag queens”, cross dressers, etc.
Restrooms within government buildings will be used by members of the opposite sex just because that person “believes” he/she has a newly discovered “right” to belong to the opposite sex. What about the rights of others? What about women who don’t wish to share the restroom with a disturbed male?
Children will be exposed to child predators, who use cross-dressing as a pre-text to gain access to children, via restrooms and employment venues involving children, etc.
It will be a strange new era if Bill C-389 is passed into law.
Please write to the Prime Minister and your MP to ensure Bill C-389 does not become law.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St, Ottawa
ON K1A 0A2
Fax 613-941-6900
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
|
