Bill C-16 is Unconstitutional
It’s day 2,211 of the Gender Reich in Canada
It has been over two thousand days since the Trudeau Regime sealed the deal on misogynistic government policy in Canada. Following the lead of the provinces, the federal government adopted an official policy of Sex Denialism in Canada — meaning any man who says he is a women now is one and a woman who protests any man in her space identifying as a woman is guilty of a hate crime, or so the regime elite tell women as way to coercively control + silence us. We didn’t forget what our mothers + grandmothers taught us, tho — disobedient women make history.
On June 19, 2017 Jody Wilson Raybauld proudly announced Royal Assent of an unconstitutional law that she had written. The Trudeau Regime and Canada’s mediocre press corps, which the Regime has had in its pocket for nearly a decade, endorsed + promoted Gender Self-ID as revolutionary, a victory for gender equality in Canada. On December 13, 2018 The Status of Women became Women and Gender Equality. With this new departmental restructuring the regime could direct funds previously earmarked for women’s rights to organizations which promote misogynistic and anti-gay rhetoric. Imagine funding nonprofits who will insidiously do the work of dismantling constitutional women’s rights for you, so you don’t have to get your hands dirty — that’s Justin Trudeau’s Regime. Can we call this informal network of misogynists + Gender Affirmationists intent on destroying women the Gender Revolutionary Guard Corps? As a result of the restructuring of government social policy away from women-friendly and toward a policy of queer-focussed gender equity flavoured by racial essentialism, Canadians now experience:
a destruction women’s rights
a destruction of gay rights
the banishment of women from their spaces
the hijacking of women’s rights groups by queer activists
the banishment of gay and lesbian people from their own spaces
the hijacking of gay + lesbian + bi spaces + rights groups by queer activists
a growing culture of sex-addled repressive tolerance which expresses and endorses violent + misogynist fantasies + narratives about women
a fractured + deeply divisive + oppositional + prone-to-violence social activist landscape
fear of speaking out against the growing repressive tolerance in Canada
the growing disenfranchisement + geographic resentments we experienced in the 80s when the country painfully battled the constitutional issue and faced growing threats of separatism in Quebec
growing resentments and re-injury of old national wounds as a result of the sociopathic manner in which the Trudeau Regime has responded to the residential school trauma and the entire portfolio of Indigenous affairs
Oh Canada, my country—we are divided.
We have served as a beacon to many who had to flee their homelands because of severe communist rule or fascist repression or war or raging extremism that breeds corruption and violence. People want to come to this nation, and when they get here they feel so happy + grateful they cannot love Canada enough. In my life I have seen this story play out many many many times. I remember waves of immigration + refugees — Vietnam, Iran, Iron Curtain Europe, Serbia, Iraq/Syria. That’s only the major waves. I remember always a steady stream of immigration from Africa (Manitoba recruits doctors from Africa for its rural medical needs), the Indian subcontinent, the Philippines, and a trickle from America. Canada has tougher immigration entry requirements than does American by the way. Canada is not the spare room for Americans, in case any Americans think this.
If you don’t get out of Canada much I suppose I could forgive you for not realising how fabulous it is. I feel sad and irritated to find myself in a time when it’s trendy + edgy to call Canada genocidal, to actively destroy + misrepresent the history of this country, to increasingly shame + vilify anyone who expresses patriotism + national pride. Yes—we have a generation of entitled ingrates, sitting on top of the largest freshwater supply in the world, the second largest landmass, a wealth of opportunity, and universal health care — saying they feel oppressed and like victims of an exploitative system + society. It’s beyond ridiculous. It’s cluster B. We have created a cohort of cluster B halfwits — neurotic + histrionic + hyperbolic, unable to engage independent (ie dislodged from hive mind) thinking, highly tribal, deeply embedded in grievance culture.
I feel like Canada has been invaded by a colony of unproductive Borgs. I also feel like I have taken the red pill and I’m stuck in a cluster of people who took the blue pill. I feel like I am in a crappy perpetual Groundhog Day loop of existence. I feel grateful my parents are no longer alive to witness this horror show unfold and sad they are not here to provide me wisdom + guidance and remind me patience and show me I can do this thing, face this Goliath and not forget my good Self. I feel filled with rage and sometimes fear to see expressed + endorsed + foisted upon women + dismissed so casually by the pro-Trudeau Regime ruling elite the terrorizing behaviour I had to live through personally, and that my mother and 2 of my sisters have had to do, and that my eldest brother did as well— via domestical violence. Did we all overcome the horror of domestic abuse to have our very own state abuse us in the same manner with gaslighting and emotional manipulation and coercive control?
How do we expect to make this country a better place if we trot around hating it? What we focus on grows and this grievance culture has made insignificant + unremarkable annoyances into mountainous stinking rotting obstacles. Do you allow people to trash your most cherished objects, and paint graffiti all over your home, and play loud audio loops of obnoxious vulgarities, and spew hateful extremism and dehumanisations? No. So, why are we tolerating that in our collective home? Why are we sitting back in apathy and letting the Cluster B Brigade turn our lovely living room above the crack house into the sewage septic tank above the crack house?
Do we really have an entire cohort of supposed social justice warriors ignorant of the rights the Charter of Rights of Freedoms affords them and all Canadians? Do we really have a large portion of the ruling class elite who have no idea that sex and not gender is in the Equality section of the Charter in Canada? Do we really live in a country where the citizens are so apathetic and intellectually helpless we have allowed the government to violate us by passing legislation that violates the Charter and then by committing egregious human rights violations in the name of that unconstitutional legislation?
The Trudeau Regime has a record of fiscal recklessness, corruption, lack of transparency + accountability, and dangerous immaturity. Above all the Trudeau Regime has shown itself to be an authoritarian regime which hates women and seeks to concentrate its power at every opportunity whilst denying critical analysis and suppressing vigorous debate. Bill C-16, the Gender Self-ID law, imposes a heavy burden on women. It violates Section 15, the Equality section of The Charter. It does not meet the criteria (ie. Oakes Test) for restricting women’s rights under Section 1 of The Charter. The Canadian constitution—The Charter of Rights and Freedoms—remains the law of the land. All laws in Canada ultimately must comply with The Charter or face being struck down by the SCC when a citizen or organisation launches + wins a challenge.
I’m going to focus on Section 15 arguments against Bill C-16 in this missive.
Section 15 of the highest law of the land, the law above all other others, says that every Canadian has the right to equal protection + benefit under the law without discrimination based on sex, and it says that this section does not preclude laws whose purpose is to ameliorate the conditions of a particular group based on sex. Furthermore, Section 2 of The Charter gives Canadians freedom of belief, opinion, expression, association, and peaceful assembly.
In simple language The Charter guarantees women the right to equal protection + benefit under the law and says that to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex is a violation. It also guarantees women the right to believe, opine, and express what we wish and to gather with whom we wish. Men cannot stop us because they are upset we are gathering to talk about them. It is not discrimination to exclude men from women’s spaces and programs when those spaces and programs exist for the purpose of ameliorating the systemic and societal disadvantages faced by women. Gender is NOT listed in the Charter and in Canadian jurisprudence sexual orientation falls under the purview of sex protection, however for the purposes of a Section 15 challenge sexual orientation could be a separate analogous ground, that is in addition to sex.
Changing the sex marker on a man’s legal and government documentation does not remove the disadvantage that women face, it grants men who self-ID the advantage over women. Gender Self-ID blocks women from receiving the protection the Charter guarantees them and it accords the opportunity for men to weaponise self-ID against women. As a result of Bill C-16, men have access to services for trans people and they can access services for women. As a result of Bill C-16, rape survivors have lost access to certain services, since gender equity forces them to share their rape shelters with members of the opposite sex who identify as the woman gender.
Advancement of gender equity laws in British Columbia means that men, who are overrepresented amongst sex offenders (women being overwhelmingly overrepresented amongst their victims) now can identify into the female sex class by filling out a form and paying $27. How do women receive protection from violent + misogynist men who want to destroy them under Gender Self ID? How can women escape men when men can identify themselves across the safeguards society has established to keep women away from violent + misogynist men?
The Charterpedia states the following with respect to Section 15 claims: that is, the Court has underscored that “the concept of equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment and that the formal ‘like treatment’ model of discrimination may in fact produce inequality”. In other words, government can allow discrimination against men in certain cases, for example barring them from employment in rape shelters, or barring them from changing their sex markers on identification, when the purpose is to ameliorate the sex-based disadvantage that female people face in comparison to men. Law v. Canada [1999] 1 SCR 497 established its approach to Section 15 claims.
A good farmer does not let coyotes and wolves into the ban or pasture where his cows are staying or feeding. He does not let the fox into the hen house. A good zookeeper erects a solid and tested barrier between the lions and the children and their families who come to visit them. We live in a world where we protect vulnerable humans from their predators — safeguards exist because they have a demonstrated track record of preventing injury and death and of promoting civility and order needed to advance society.
Law v. Canada [1999] 1 SCR 497 further outlines the purpose of Section 15 and stipulates that the objective of the impugned law must conflict with the purpose of Section 15 in order for a discrimination claim to have standing.
(4) In general terms, the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration.
(5) The existence of a conflict between the purpose or effect of an impugned law and the purpose of s. 15(1) is essential in order to found a discrimination claim. The determination of whether such a conflict exists is to be made through an analysis of the full context surrounding the claim and the claimant.
The Law SCC ruling also notes the comparative nature of Section 15 and stipulates that contextual consider happens from the claimant’s perspective. The SCC also noted factors to consider when assessing Section 15 violations, such as prejudice and pre-existing disadvantage. The more severe the consequences of the legislation for a particular group the more likely it is that a discrimination claim can stand.
(6) The equality guarantee is a comparative concept, which ultimately requires a court to establish one or more relevant comparators. The claimant generally chooses the person, group, or groups with whom he or she wishes to be compared for the purpose of the discrimination inquiry. However, where the claimant’s characterization of the comparison is insufficient, a court may, within the scope of the ground or grounds pleaded, refine the comparison presented by the claimant where warranted. Locating the relevant comparison group requires an examination of the subject-matter of the legislation and its effects, as well as a full appreciation of context.
In Hodge v Canada [2004] 3 SCR 357 the SCC rejected the comparator analysis. In Withler v Canada [2011] 1 SCR 396 the SCC eliminated the comparator requirement altogether, stating
It is not necessary to pinpoint a mirror comparator group. Provided that the claimant establishes a distinction based on one or more of the enumerated or analogous grounds, the claim should proceed to the second step of the analysis. This provides the flexibility required to accommodate claims based on intersecting grounds of discrimination. At the second step, the question is whether, having regard to all relevant factors, the distinction the law makes between the claimant group and others discriminates by perpetuating disadvantage or prejudice to the claimant group, or by stereotyping it.
According to the Charterpedia [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396 confirmed that section 15 is inherently comparative in that claimants have to establish distinctive treatment (which presupposes comparison with others) based on a prohibited ground (paragraph 62). Claimants don’t require proof of discriminatory intent, only proof of a discriminatory consequence. Claimants needn’t provide evidence for every part of the analysis, however the Court does need to see a trend or pattern and also that a specific group bore a disproportionately higher burden of discrimination.
(i) Does the law create a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground?
The Gender Self-ID law creates a distinction based on SEX, a ground enumerated in Section 15, and it also creates a distinction based on SEXUAL ORIENTATION, an established analogous ground in Canadian jurisprudence (Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; Vriend, supra; M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3: Little Sisters, supra)
(ii) Is the distinction discriminatory?
The distinction does have the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, and exacerbating the disadvantage of women and also the same sex attracted. Specific populations of women overwhelmingly disadvantaged by Gender Self ID include carceral and homeless women, those seeking shelter and rape-victim services, immigrant women, and Muslim women. The Gender Self-ID law has negatively impacted all areas of women’s public life—including professional, health care acquisition, and within community life. The Gender Self-ID law has infringed upon the right of women to live freely in safety with security of person, and even to assemble + gather without fear of violent retribution or harassment or terror.
Law v. Canada established the following 4 contextual factors to guide the analysis of a Section 15 claim:
(a) pre-existing disadvantage, if any, of the claimant group;
(b) degree of correspondence between the differential treatment and the claimant group’s reality;
(c) whether the law or program has an ameliorative purpose or effect, including the multiplicity of interests that such a law or program attempts to balance as described in Withler, supra at paragraph 38 (largely, but not wholly subsumed, since Kapp, supra, within the section 15(2) analysis); and
(d) the nature of the interest affected. In recent decisions, the Supreme Court stated that it is not necessary or desirable to apply a step-by-step consideration of these factors and described them “as a way of focusing on the central concern of section 15 - combating discrimination (Kapp, supra at paragraph 24; Quebec v. A., supra at paragraph 331; Alliance, supra at paragraph 28).
In Ontario v. Fraser, [2011] 2 SCR 3 the SCC the stipulated that the second step of the s. 15 inquiry should focus on whether the law or government action has a discriminatory impact on disadvantaged groups, not on the issue of whether the distinction is justified in the sense that it is relevant to a legitimate state objective, an inquiry properly left to section 1 of the Charter (Fraser, supra at paragraph 79; see also Ontario v. G., supra at paragraph 69). In R. v. Kapp, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483 the Court provided for an independent role rather than just an interpretive aid for Section 15(2). The purpose of 15(2) is to eliminate claims of discrimination by an advantaged group. Once claimants have passed the grounds requirement, the government must established whether the impugned law satisfies the requirements to stand as an ameliorative one:
To satisfy the requirements of section 15(2), the government must establish that:
The program has a genuinely ameliorative or remedial purpose; and
The program targets a disadvantaged group identified by the enumerated or analogous grounds (Kapp, supra at paragraph 41).
If the government fails to meet these requirements, it can still argue that the impugned measure does not have a substantively discriminatory impact within the meaning of section 15(1) (Kapp, supra at paragraph 40).
The government must consider whether the chosen means of amelioration provides the best and most prudent process to achieve its purpose— is there a correlation between the program and the disadvantage suffered by the target group? Does the disadvantage of the target group warrant the consequential discrimination to the claimant group? Laws which only nominally serve the needs of disadvantaged must receive a full 15(1) analysis. Disadvantage under section 15 connotes vulnerability, prejudice, and negative social characterization … The exclusion of the claimant group must “serve or advance the ameliorative goal” … ameliorative programs will be upheld as long as the exclusion of the claimant group is not an irrational means of pursuing the stated ameliorative goal.
The relationship between section 15 and section 1
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The relationship between Section 15 and Section 1 has evolved over the course of Canadian jurisprudence. The SCC has established clearly a distinction between the two sections. Section 1 analysis assesses the rationality of the impugned distinction relative to the government’s asserted legislative or policy goal. The Charterpedia states:
The Supreme Court stressed that any government arguments about the necessity or reasonableness of the impugned law or action are to be advanced under s. 1. This justification requires a pressing and substantial objective for the discrimination and proof of proportionality between that objective and the means used to achieve it (Fraser, supra at paragraphs 79-80; see also R. v. C.P., supra, at paragraph 57).
Can the government demonstrate that granting men “gender self identity rights”, ie the right to allow men to change their sex markers and access women’s spaces and programs without women being able to protest their presence, warrants the discriminatory consequences borne by women? Does the benefit of granting Gender Self-ID to men justify the hardship and danger to women who cannot identify out of their disadvantage and in some cases, such as carceral women, cannot escape the predacious and dangerous men who use self ID as a way to terrorise them? This is The Oakes Test, the Section 1 reasonable limits test. Women who cannot have sex-protection do not have reproductive freedom. When a carceral woman cannot choose to exclude a man who identifies a woman from her space, she does not have reproductive choice.
On 29 June 2000, Canada enacted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA), becoming the first country in the world to adopt comprehensive legislation implementing the Rome Statute. 23 years later, Canada now has a policy of state enforced rape and Sex Denialism.
I want to be very clear about one more thing: Trans women are women. We will always stand up to this hate – whenever and wherever it occurs. —Justin Trudeau, Sex Denialist + 23rd and current Prime Minster of Canada
In my view, there should be a presumption of penitentiary placement based on gender identity, not based on genitalia. — Ivan Zinger, Sex Denialist + promoter of state-enforced rape for carceral women, Correctional Investigator of Canada
If you're someone who has a woman's gender and was born with a male sex that requires you to seek out surgery to be able to live in a woman's prison and feel safe and not be at risk of sexual assault. It's extremely upsetting and discriminatory. — Jennifer Metcalfe, Sex Denialist + lawyer with the West Coast Prison Justice Society
Canada has a grave problem, having been captured by a misogynist cult of Sex Denialism. Sex Denialism harms women and it places children at risk of sexual violation + violence. Sexual abuse leaves severe and lasting impacts on its victims. Co-ed bathroom facilities in schools have forced girls to share their private spaces with boys, without their consent. Reports of rape have risen with the increase in “gender neutral” bathrooms. Girls have found themselves in a hostile social landscape which gaslights them and demands that they relinquish all boundaries and never exclude males from their spaces. Girls + women have been told to pay for Justin Trudeau’s the “gender equality” by allowing themselves to be raped. Sexual abuse is a depraved form of repression + abuse. Inflicted upon a wide enough collective scale it could be considered genocide. Child sexual abuse is thought to be associated with 47% of mental illnesses in childhood and 30% in adulthood.1
Who does Gender Self-ID affirm? Because it certainly is not Canadian girls + women.
If you appreciated this post, consider supporting Bad Hijabi research + writing by purchasing an annual subscription. Also, don’t forget to share this post widely.
Robin 2023, 10.3390/ijerph20021071