Dear Nigel Hannford:

After reading your asinine screed in the Calgary Herald about a transsexual who complained about membership at a gym.

Starting with your utterly denigrating and offensive use of the term "he/she", which the Associated Press Style Guide says you don't do. The person is living as a woman, use female pronouns. Anything else is disrespectful in the extreme. A transsexual - even pre-operatively - is not a "he/she" - that's a crude term that merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject.

On the other hand, having this same fully endowed person in a girls-only changing room is almost certainly something the women wouldn't want. In fact, the consensus of the admittedly modest sample I surveyed was that it would "creep me out."

Okay, I can - to some extent - accept that reality. But, a MTF transsexual can no more use the men's changing rooms than the women's in that circumstance. (In fact, arguably, the men's changing facility is potentially quite dangerous to the transsexual)

But, the question has to be asked - are there single person washrooms that she could use? Would it be acceptable for her to use the shower area if she wore a bathing suit to cover up the bits everyone is so freaked out about? (Do I really need to explain that by the time someone transitions to living full time, chances are the bits between the legs aren't functioning the same way they did when the body had a full dose of testosterone in it?)

So, while transsexuals have rights, they are not insuperable rights: get the operation done, then join the gym. It won't hurt you to wait.

No. Wrong. Dead wrong in fact. Using that logic, it becomes even easier to ban transsexuals from using the gender-correct bathrooms in public places. Not every locale has single occupancy bathrooms, and transsexuals, like every body else, need to pee from time to time.

What the club owner's mistake was is a failure to communicate. When you "put someone off" like that, you had better make sure you are communicating your intentions and progress with them. Otherwise, they will quite rightly assume that you are just hoping that they will go away.

Most transsexuals will live with some kind of compromise solution as I suggested above. It's not like they are unaware of the impact that they have on those around them. (They may not be happy about it, but they'll live with it) Telling them to go "hide in the closet until they are post-op is not unrealistic, it's stupid.

It is not creating a better world, however, when self-absorbed people put other people in a bind to advance what they see as a right, and HRCs abet them.

You sir, have just passed beyond offensive. How is trying to live a perfectly conventional life (including exercise) "self-absorbed"???

Nigel Hannaford: Hacktacular!

What few reservations I had about Nigel Hannaford having become less of a journalist and more of a puppet for the hardline right wing in Canada have just evaporated.

His Saturday tirade is one of the most illogical pieces of reasoning to come forth from him.

In a classic bit of "conservative" reasoning, he tries to tie David Suzuki's statements about climate change to the case of Chris Kempling as a "freedom of speech" issue. A classic "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of argument that twists the unreasonable by tying it to something that almost seems rational.

I think Suzuki's statements are laughable, but Hannaford's recount of the Kempling case is utterly brain damaged, and linking the two topics together is simply bad logic.

There's a difference between Suzuki's comments and Kempling - and it's significant. Suzuki is talking about what consequences he feels should apply to politicians who choose to sit on their thumbs with respect to his pet issues.

Kempling is a whole different matter. Among other things, Kempling was in a position of trust with respect to youth, and he was peddling reparative therapy, which is potentially very, very damaging to the client's well-being:

The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

*** In short, you are unlike to succeed in making people something that they aren't

Hannaford's oversight in failing to understand that Kempling's public positions towards the GLBT community placed him in conflict with the very role that he was contracted to do as a teacher and school counsellor. Kempling may well firmly believe that as a "Christian" he was doing the right thing, but in fact his overall demeanor would have left any GLBT student seeking guidance from him in a truly perilous place indeed.

Instead, Hannaford chooses to connect the two matters as though they are comparable, after all, he claims, Kempling was merely on the "wrong side of an argument". Nothing could be farther from reality. Kempling made it very public, and very clear that he was outright hostile to GLBT people, and worse was willing to profit from trying to "cure" their conditions.

That's a far cry from the kind of silliness that Suzuki may have been advocating, but Suzuki's in no position to cause anyone to be imprisoned. (and I would argue that were such a law to be tabled in the House of Commons that it should not even pass first reading)

Freedom of speech is no luxury, but it is also not unfettered. We all bear a responsibility towards our fellow human beings of civility.

Spewing Talking Points: Nigel Hannaford

The Herald's Nigel Hannaford has descended into the pit of spewing conservative talking points.

This week's topic from Mr. Hannaford is all about a vile little piece of work that writes for Maclean's under the name Mark Steyn. Steyn is yet another of the "chickenhawk" crowd - pro war, pro American aggression, and desperately phobic of the "brown-skinned menace" that he predicts will overrun Europe in a few generations. (I won't go into the details of Steyn's bird cage liner book - if you really want to read it, find it in the library or a used book store ... or at the bottom of a parrot cage)

Apparently, Mr. Steyn finds himself subject of a human rights complaint:

A chapter of his book, America Alone, ran in Maclean's Magazine last year. In it, Steyn predicted -- in his trademark abundant style -- the likely outcome of changing European demographics. Low birth rates among Europeans, and high birth rates among Muslims, could have only one result: eventual Islamization of the continent. He also cited the satisfaction that gave Islamic leaders such as Libyan president Moammar Gadhafi: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Complainant Dr. Mohamed Elmasry says it was "flagrantly anti-Muslim . . ." As a reader of Maclean's, "I am entitled to its services without discrimination on the basis of religion."

This is the issue. The rise of Europe's Muslim population Steyn talks about is real -- in France it's reached 10 per cent. If religion matters to government and institutions, (and we know it does, and separate church and state accordingly,) it's reasonable to suppose this may affect life over there.

While Steyn may wish to assert that Europe will be "a Muslim continent" within a few decades, I suspect strongly that the issue is not the prediction itself, but rather the manner in which Steyn framed it that is at issue.

However, Mr. Steyn's specific woes are not my point with Mr. Hannaford's column. It is the blatant way that he repeats a series of talking points that I have heard repeatedly out of those who wish to impose their will upon others.

In Canada, there are two parallel streams of law dealing with speech. One is the criminal code, the other is the constellation of human rights commissions.

The key difference among many is that nailing somebody for discriminatory speech is much harder in court under the code, than at a commission by its rules. The prosecution has to prove an intent to incite hate; it is difficult to get a conviction. The commissions just take somebody being offended as prime facie evidence of guilt.

Well, not all somebodies. Years ago, B.C.'s HRC declared a hierarchy of protection: vulnerable minorities got it, members of oppressor groups didn't. Seriously: In the name of equality, these people declared Canadians unequal before them.

This is so fundamentally dishonest it's not even funny. Hannaford is doing little more than spouting a talking point here. Just as he did in his commentary on the Boissoin ruling, he's blithely ignoring the reality of the situation.

While the Human Rights Commission uses a much less rigid set of standards upon which to evaluate a case than would be used in evaluating criminal charges under S. 318 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Hannaford is utterly incorrect in claiming that they are "parallel laws". The Human Rights Commissions are essentially civil processes with very limited powers to impose punishments. Second, once a case leaves the commission system, there are options to appeal those cases to the courts.

Second, the criteria for a "hate crime" are quite different for the criteria that one would make a finding of "discrimination". Hannaford is conflating the two, and being quite dishonest in the process.

Multiculturalism secretary Jason Kenney thinks Elmasry is reaching: "To be attacking opinions expressed by a columnist in a major magazine is a pretty bold attack on the basic Canadian value of freedom of the press and freedom of expression . . . I think all Canadians would reject that kind of effort to undermine one of our basic freedoms."

Well, without seeing the substance of the complaint, I fail to see how either Kenney or Hannaford can really comment. I suspect that Elmasry's complaint won't go very far on its own merits.

I think Steyn's predictions are largely intellectual excretia, from the fevered imaginings of a man who tends to argue purely from assertion and claim that it is fact.

You've guessed it. Steyn is a paid-up member of the oppressors, and won't get a chance to marshal his facts in court, or offer a fair-comment defence.

Instead, it's off to the HRC, where all that matters is whether what he wrote is judged likely to bring an identifiable group into hatred or contempt.

Hannaford's characterization of Human Rights Commission processes is horribly dishonest here. If you have actually spent some time reviewing the published decisions (such as the Boissoin decision), it's quite clear that both parties in the discussion have considerable opportunity to put forward their side of the story, and that the commissioners do make an effort to weigh the positions in the context of both the laws that set out the powers of the Commission, Canada's legal framework overall and past cases.

These are not, as Hannaford or Craig Chandler might characterize them, "Kangaroo Courts". They are quasi judicial bodies that take their roles seriously.

Apparently Nigel Hannaford Didn't Read The Legislation

According to Nigel Hannaford, the Alberta Human Rights legislation is only supposed to address discrimination in matters such as employment or residency:

First, human rights law was intended to deal with housing and employment issues, and was never meant to restrict political debate on public policy.

I'm afraid, that Mr Hannaford needs to read Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Legislation, and perhaps the preamble in section 2.

Discrimination re publications, notices

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.

Worse for Mr. Hannaford's argument, he seems to have lost sight of the fact that a secondary complaint relating to the republication of those letters and discussions of the case on Chandler's Freedom Radio Network resulted in Chandler being obliged to remove the offending literature from his websites - presumably to avoid an even more damaging ruling under the Canadian Human Rights Commission's auspices.

The argument that the Boissoin letter should have resulted in charges under the Canadian Criminal Code is similarly flawed reasoning on Hannaford's part, as the publication of the letter itself predates Bill C-250 passing into law by 2 years, and it is extremely rare in Canada for a law of that nature to be retroactive.

Mr. Hannaford's analysis that the Boissoin decision is an unreasonable infringement on political debate is rooted in a failure to grasp the full picture and context of Boissoin's letter.

The decision has an absurd effect. If to even challenge government spending to promote homosexuality as desirable or productive is considered to be holding gays in contempt, how can political debate take place, never mind free expression for those who see it in religious terms?

Had Boissoin's letter merely protested certain programs or their funding, that would be one thing - and I would even agree with Hannaford's claims at that point. However, Boissoin's letter not only declared war on homosexuals, but called upon others to join Boissoin in whatever campaign he chose to pursue. Boissoin also made a series of claims about homosexuals that are pure assertions and demonstrably false.

Hannaford's argument further relies upon the questionable assertion that Boissoin was merely trying to debate issues based on his "firmly held religious beliefs". Declarations of war hardly strike me as debate of any kind, and in fact suggest that Boissoin was looking for conflict and notoriety far more than he was seeking debate.

It would do Hannaford good in future to actually read the legislation he is talking about, as well as fully understanding the context of the subject he is writing on - this time he so clearly failed to do his research it's depressing.