bjre Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Passing Bill C-389 is Reckless Endangerment of Children http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33182 By Dr. Charles McVety Thursday, February 10, 2011 In a rush to please special interest groups, the House of Commons has passed the Gender Identity Bill C-389 with virtually no study, debate or public consultation. The Institute for Canadian Values calls on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to right the wrong by leading the Senate to perform full and due process and reject the Bill if need be. Charles McVety, President of the Institute for Canada Values states “Bill C-389 is a danger to our children. If ‘gender identity’ is enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada, any male at any time will be permitted in girls bathrooms, showers and change rooms as long as they have an “innate feeling” of being female, according to Megan Leslie’s speech as she co-sponsored the Bill. If I then try to stop such a man from showering with my little girl at the local pool I could be in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and could face imprisonment for two years. Also, the law is a teacher, therefore gender identity will be mandatory teaching in all schools. Last year we fought hard to stop such teaching from entering the Grade 3 Ontario Sex Ed Curriculum. Bill c-389 will bring it back with the force of the law. This reckless bill must be stopped.” McVety expressed dismay, saying “I do not understand how a Conservative Prime Minister could see fit to rush a Private Member’s Bill through the house, pass it at committee in less than 30 minutes and have his two Parliamentary Secretaries vote for the bill. However when the cameras were turned on in the House, he then voted against the bill. The Prime Minister must act to defend Canadian children.” Edited February 11, 2011 by bjre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Passing Bill C-389 is Reckless Endangerment of Children Charles McVety, President of the Institute for Canada Values states Bill C-389 is a danger to our children. If gender identity is enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada, any male at any time will be permitted in girls bathrooms, showers and change rooms as long as they have an innate feeling of being female, according to Megan Leslies speech as she co-sponsored the Bill. If I then try to stop such a man from showering with my little girl at the local pool I could be in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and could face imprisonment for two years. Stupid is as stupid does. McVety aint too smart. He sounds like he graduated from the Mr Canada School for Hyperbole*****(***** Not an accredited school anywhere in Canada) Edited February 11, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) McVety aint too smart. No kidding. I tire easily of the identity politics this bill panders to (tabled by an NDP MP, no surprise), but I think we can all do with less of the faux pleading for "The Children! The Children!" And what's with the blatant anti-male slant to his diatribe? I guess the Institute for Canada Values doesn't value men very much... Whatever a man is, anymore. ------ I'm not sure I buy his argument - it's too simple and reads more as a dismissal of concerns rather than a response that openly addresses them - but, here's the MP's words relating to exactly what McVety froths about: As well, issues about the use of bathrooms and other gendered spaces often come up when human rights protection for trans people are discussed.The fear is raised that by ensuring the right of trans people to express their gender identity will make it impossible to ensure the security of gender-specific washrooms and locker rooms. Fears are raised that it will be impossible, for instance, to prevent a heterosexual man from disguising himself in order to harass, or worse, women in a women's bathroom. Nothing could be further from the reality of this kind of legislation to protect gender identity in expression. In fact, in the United States, there have been no incidents, not one, of the inappropriate use of washrooms as the result of protecting trans rights. The security of a washroom is currently protected by, and will continue to be protected by, criminal sanctions against those who behave inappropriately, who harass, or who assault washroom users. I believe that the bathroom issue is a red herring in the debate on trans rights. 40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION [+] Edited February 11, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Bloody nonsence. It really is to bad for those who have all kinds of problems but there is two sexes in this world ,male and female. Stay in your own washrooms. I mean really whats next. What washroom should I use. I am a Lesbian trapped in a mans body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Bloody nonsence. The hyperbole about "its for the children" ? Couldnt agree more. It really is to bad for those who have all kinds of problems but there is two sexes in this world ,male and female. Stay in your own washrooms. I mean really whats next. What washroom should I use. I am a Lesbian trapped in a mans body. Unisex washroom are the rage.....dont like 'em? Pee outside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) my local YMCA has male, female and family change rooms...but that hasn't prevented fathers from bringing their little girls into the men's change room, does that make all the other males in the room pedophiles?...and there are homosexual pedophiles in the men's change as well...it's not a simple clear cut issue... Edited February 11, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Well I certainly would not subject a female child to a male change/ rest room . Child abuse comes in many forms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Well I certainly would not subject a female child to a male change/ rest room . Child abuse comes in many forms. Good grief. Are you and McVety friends, by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Good grief. Are you and McVety friends, by any chance? I don`t know the person in question. Why is he or she as bright as me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) I don`t know the person in question. Why is he or she as bright as me? Antitrust in society is truely disgusting. I think if the perverts and people with uncontrolable sexual urges came to terms with this then it wouldn't be an issue. Just because a guy goes into a womans washroom doesn't mean it is to cause trouble.. sometimes a guys washroom is locked or full or out of order. If a guy was up to no good he could go in anyway since any up to no good would be illegal anyway. It is people who are just perverts deep down that cause these social divisions. Families share washrooms why not the public sexes. It is not my Canadian value to seperate the sexes place of hygine, it is a waste of tax dollars to have two types of washrooms. It is just a remenant of social division - that doesn't exist in CURRENT canadian values - only the perverts and overly anal people. This is like saying Canadians arn't people who can share the same washroom. I disagree I think that Canadians be it a family washroom, a male or female washroom.. it is totally uneeded, co-ed unisex washrooms are inline with the charter.. and the need for bisex washrooms is totally uneeded and contrary to Canada's constitutional value of equality of the sexes. Its not like gays lesbians and bisexual people don't exist anyway to male same sex washrooms sexually pure. It is nonsense. Nakedness and nudity need not be perverse or naughty. How many male gynecologists are there.. or female eurologists.. fact is here, it is only imature people who perpetuate this sort of division in society, and they ought to grow up already. Where are the people advocating for 6+ washrooms instead of two.. 1 for straight men 1 for straight women 1 for gay women (but only 1 at a time) 1 for gay men (but only 1 at a time) 1 for transgender males (maybe only 1 at a time) 1 for transgender females (maybe only 1 at a time 1 for bisexual men (1 at a time 1 for bisexual women (1 at a time. and just a closet for the others. Canadian values don't support stupidity. Perhaps the president needs to change the name of his organization. disorganization of Canadian stupidity (maybe parents should be accompanying children who are defenseless Edited February 11, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Well I certainly would not subject a female child to a male change/ rest room . Child abuse comes in many forms. young kids have no concept of sex or what abuse is, that's a learned social behaviour which they learn from their parents ...there are still cultures where male and female nudity is not a sexual issue with kids or adults...there are countries where only nude bathers are allowed in unisex swimming pools... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Well I certainly would not subject a female child to a male change/ rest room . Child abuse comes in many forms. Have you ever been out in public with a small child? i have, many times, but I should think your imagination might be useful in this instance. So what exactly would you have the father with his little daughter (ie myself, and countless others) do? Exactly what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Gays already have the right to enter showers of potential sex partners, whether anyone likes it or not. In school dormitories of military. Why not everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Gays already have the right to enter showers of potential sex partners, whether anyone likes it or not. In school dormitories of military. Why not everyone? yes, it's adults that have the problem with nudity not kids... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 It is not my Canadian value to seperate the sexes place of hygine, it is a waste of tax dollars to have two types of washrooms. To save tax dollars, less public washrooms should be built, a sink and a water pipe is enough, you should pee/poo anywhere. fact is here, it is only imature people who perpetuate this sort of division in society, and they ought to grow up already. I think wild animals are more grown up according to your definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I just wondered how the MP proposing this amendment to the Criminal Act can reconcile his super-left NDP values of inclusion for everyone with the possible scenario wherein a Muslim* woman objects, on religious and cultural grounds, to the presence in her changeroom of a man who says he's allowed in there because he really, truely does feel like a woman. Dedicated change rooms for all! * I use such an example because Jews and Christians are too "empowered" and "mainstream", accoding to the NDP scale of victimhood, to warrant special protections under the guise of inclusiveness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 To save tax dollars, less public washrooms should be built, a sink and a water pipe is enough, you should pee/poo anywhere. Please leave your front door open , dont worry, the CAS wont come in, just me....and I really gotta go! I think wild animals are more grown up according to your definition. The animals blame CAS for everything too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I just wondered how the MP proposing this amendment to the Criminal Act can reconcile his super-left NDP values of inclusion for everyone I don't know about Canada but there are international plans for Mt. Everest to have a wheelchair acces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 And yes, acces is spelled with two 's' but it's not finished yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.