Canada's House of Commons Passes Transgender Rights Bill

[metta]

Canada's House of Commons Passes Transgender Rights Bill

http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/canada-s-house-of-commons-passes-transgender-rights-bill

 

[gsdx]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the posting. The margin was narrow, but narrow is good in this case.

It was interesting to see that MPs from all parties voted for and against it. It wasn't a partisan vote.

 

[frankfrank]

And the report I heard, says that the Canadian Senate seldom fails to pass something already passed by the House of Commons.

Canada is far ahead of the U. S. curve, again!

What are Harper's thoughts on the bill? Will he let it stand?

 

[silosybin]

Good news. Here's a more detailed article: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/02/09/ndp-transgender.html

As usual, the cons have their nutcase arguments against it. The main argument seems to be that protection for transgendered people means you have to allow pedophiles to go in the opposite gender washroom to sexually assault children. Do these people even have any idea what they sound like?

 

[silosybin]

And the report I heard, says that the Canadian Senate seldom fails to pass something already passed by the House of Commons.

Canada is far ahead of the U. S. curve, again!

What are Harper's thoughts on the bill? Will he let it stand?

Same as in the US, it goes House -> Senate -> Head of State, but here "Head of State" is the governor general, who is unelected, and it's extremely rare for them to veto anything. The Senate is also unelected, so it's also rare for them to vote down anything passed by the House. If they did it would be a very big deal.

The Prime Minister (Harper) is the head of the House, so once it passed there he no longer has any say.

 

[frankfrank]

^ Thanks for the information, silosybin! That's certainly different than how it works here...but your comments give more hope that this Bill 389 will go all the way, as well.

 

[volumee]

Omg! I'm Canadian, and I didn't even know that! It certainly did not make the headlines over here

 

[bankside]

We've been discussing this in CE& P as well.

Unfortunately the Senate will block it at the Conservative Prime Minister's command.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334992

From the Globe and Mail:

Once again, the House of Commons has passed legislation against the will of Prime Minister Stephen Harper – this time, to protect the rights of transgender and transsexual citizens. Once again, it is likely to die in the Senate.

The Conservatives, who have a majority in the upper house, have adopted the tactic of using the Senate to block private members’ bills passed by the House of Commons that don’t accord with the government’s agenda.

 

[silosybin]

sickening...

harper used senate reform as a major plank in the last federal election. he said he wanted to make an elected senate.

obviously, of course, once he became prime minister, he completely forgot about the issue and appointed his own senators anyway. now he's using it to block legislation passed by the elected politicians.

he is such a disgusting hypocrite, i hate him so much.

 

[Aaron]

The Prime Minister (Harper) is the head of the House, so once it passed there he no longer has any say.

Not true. The Head of Government in the Senate is also a Conservative cabinet minister under the direction of the PM. The Tories have used the senate to block bills (or bog them down under endless layers of bureaucracy) numerous times.... this bill won't make it past the upper house.

I do, however, think it's an important milestone that it was debated and passed in the House even if it doesn't make it through the Senate.

 

[silosybin]

Yeah apparently I'm mistaken. Although, can the PM remove senators? Otherwise I don't really see anything preventing them from ignoring him and voting how they see fit anyway.

 

[Aaron]

Yeah apparently I'm mistaken. Although, can the PM remove senators? Otherwise I don't really see anything preventing them from ignoring him and voting how they see fit anyway.

He could boot them out of caucus... but I'm not sure if he can remove them from the senate all together.

 

[Keelandson]

. . . here "Head of State" is the governor general, who is unelected, and it's extremely rare for them to veto anything.

Queen Elizabeth is the so-called head of state, not the governor general.

Though it has been argued that the term head of state is a republican one inapplicable in a constitutional monarchy such as Canada, where the monarch is the embodiment of the state and thus cannot be head of it,[79] the sovereign is regarded by official government sources,[14][90][91] judges,[92] constitutional scholars,[77][93] and pollsters as the head of state,[94] while the governor general and lieutenant governors are all only representatives of, and thus equally subordinate to, that figure.

The bill will go nowhere because Harper's Alberta Reform knee-jerk reactionary born-agains will kill it in the Senate, the unelected elephant graveyard for superannuated political bagmen and propagandists.

 

[silosybin]

Queen Elizabeth is the so-called head of state, not the governor general.

I know, was just simplifying

 

[rotary]

sickening...

harper used senate reform as a major plank in the last federal election. he said he wanted to make an elected senate.

obviously, of course, once he became prime minister, he completely forgot about the issue and appointed his own senators anyway. now he's using it to block legislation passed by the elected politicians.

he is such a disgusting hypocrite, i hate him so much.

Being devils advocate, he had to appoint senators that were in favour of senate reform for there to be the possibility of an elected senate.

The only true way for "sober second thought" is to have the upper house proportionally represented by votes. Something we'll never see.

 

[BearBoi]

Woot! Even with a conservative lead government we still get this shit passed. Go us. And go USA, in continuing to fight for equality and justice for all peoples under your own laws.

 

[silosybin]

Being devils advocate, he had to appoint senators that were in favour of senate reform for there to be the possibility of an elected senate.

Wouldn't a referendum be able to do the trick as well? (asking, don't actually know)

 

[wooffy]

The only true way for "sober second thought" is to have the upper house proportionally represented by votes. Something we'll never see.

The only way to have "sober second thought" is to have an Upper House that is in all ways a complement to the Commons. So it must:

- NOT be elected
- NOT have short terms
- NOT be partisan

Force senators to leave behind all party affiliations, and remove the PM from the appointment process, and our Senate will work just fine.

 

[Keelandson]

The only way to have "sober second thought" is to have an Upper House that is in all ways a complement to the Commons. So it must:

• Have a collective IQ higher than a kumquat.