Law to protect 'gender expression'


The Canadian House of Commons is currently considering a bill that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of "gender identity" and "gender expression."

Bill C-389 was proposed by Canadian New Democrat Member of Parliament Bill Siksay, who introduced it this way: "The bill is about explicitly ensuring full human rights protection in areas of federal jurisdiction for transgender and transsexual Canadians."

What does it actually mean? Dr. Douglas Farrow, professor of Christian Thought at McGill University in Montreal, wrote an open letter to members of parliament urging them to vote against the bill: "It will entrench in Canadian law the notion that sex and/or gender are basically social constructs, products of a series of human choices, based not in the natural order but in more or less arbitrary acts of interpretation."

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

As Farrow explains, the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" are completely subjective. In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, he said that the bill would actually undermine protections now in place based on sex. It would come down to "how you perceive your maleness or femaleness."

Practically speaking, if a man "feels" like a woman, it could become against the law to stop him from using bathrooms for women.

Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College in Toronto, expressed concerns along those lines to the Toronto Sun: "I have a 13-year-old daughter. I don't want her going in and showering with a grown man at the local pool, regardless of the man's inner feelings."

But Megan Leslie, another New Democrat member of parliament and supporter of the bill, had this to say to the House of Commons regarding such concerns: "Imagine the indignity of having to have a letter in one's purse or wallet explaining that the use of the washroom is allowed."

Frightening as the bill's implications are, it would be interesting to see if its passage generated sufficient backlash to halt the "human rights" movement up north.

Marcia Segelstein
Marcia Segelstein


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…