Lisa Bildy: Human rights rules on gender ideology are just blasphemy laws - "For a time, freedom of speech, thought, and religion were seen as antidotes to oppressively enforced beliefs. Oppressively enforced beliefs are back. But those beliefs don’t emanate from pulpits. It’s no longer Christianity demanding adherence to beliefs, but the secular religion of social justice. Neufeld learned the hard way that gender identity is now an unquestionable tenet of this new faith. Human rights tribunals are its enforcers under the guise of punishing “discrimination.” The curriculum he criticized, introduced in 2016, roughly coincided with “gender identity” becoming a protected class under human rights codes across Canada. Traditionally, discrimination meant denying access to services, employment, or accommodation based on immutable qualities. Now, human rights tribunals use state power to enforce progressive dogma. This shift is not entirely new. In 2006, publisher Ezra Levant faced a discrimination complaint for reprinting the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. He and Mark Steyn, who faced similar complaints for commentary on Islam published in Maclean’s magazine, drew attention to tribunal overreach, leading to the repeal of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act, which had empowered the tribunal to punish “hate speech.” But section 13’s proponents are becoming emboldened again. Court decisions rendered in the interim have only encouraged them. Neufeld’s case, under provincial human rights law, is the kind you would expect under the federal Online Harms Bill, introduced by the previous Liberal government and floated again by the current government. It proposes to restore those hate speech enforcement powers to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Under this bill, individuals who feel “harmed” by online speech would have the power to drag the speak er through a costly, multi-year process, at no cost to themselves. But that’s obviously already happening, at least in British Columbia. In an interim decision in Neufeld’s case, B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal decided that, although previous decisions of the tribunal had found otherwise, it actually does have the power to regulate online posts under its existing legislation. Other provinces have similar legislative powers. Many parents and citizens would be shocked by what the tribunal considers “hate speech” and “discrimination.” They should read the case, if only to understand how expansively these concepts were interpreted. They should also understand that the bureaucratic machinery exists only to protect certain favoured groups and ideas within the social justice canon. Universal human rights are an illusion in Canada. Those who follow free speech cases are no longer surprised by such decisions. Over the past two decades, courts, governments, and tribunals have expanded the limits on free expression, rarely reinforcing broad conceptions of this fundamental freedom. The balancing act is often couched in phrases like, “Free speech is sacrosanct in our democracy, but of course there are limits …” This case expands limits on freedom of expression in two significant ways. First, disparaging gender ideology — even when targeting ideas, not people — was found to be discriminatory. B.C.’s human rights commissioner argued that’s the way it should be. Excluding opinions on matters of “legitimate public interest” from the tribunal’s authority, she argued, created a loophole that should be closed. Mark Steyn avoided punishment for his commentary on Islam, also litigated in B.C., because it was considered political commentary within the bounds of free expression. Today’s human rights functionaries won’t abide such limits on their power. Second, the expanded interpretation was applied to an elected trustee, whose role is to challenge policies and raise concerns about educational changes. Bureaucrats now dictate what elected officials can say on public policy matters. The tribunal’s decision also included a passage chastising those who do not believe in gender identity, positing that failure to do so constitutes discriminatory “erasure” of transgender people. Expressing beliefs against gender identity — such as skepticism about changing one’s sex or concerns about males entering women’s spaces — may therefore be severely penalized if deemed “discriminatory” or “hateful” by the administrative state. The $750,000 fine against Neufeld is unprecedented in the human rights context. While framed as compensation for “harm” to LGBTQ teachers, it was clearly intended to financially ruin him for his speech and refusal to embrace gender identity. It also serves as a warning to anyone considering criticism of the new faith. Blasphemy laws are back. Public outrage is growing, and politicians are being pressured to act. Reining in these star chambers is no longer good enough. Legislatures must abolish them, along with the human rights codes that they enforce. That requires political backbone, so don’t hold your breath. Instead, call, write, or sign a petition like ours at the Free Speech Union to let your political leaders know how many Canadians oppose financial ruin for expressing opinions on issues affecting themselves and their children."
Misgendering case an absurd waste of time and resources - "An Ontario court has ruled that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) must hold a new hearing, with a different adjudicator, in the case of a Black trans man who complained of discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression at a walk-in medical clinic. Jordan Renae Thorne originally filed an HRTO complaint alleging he was “repeatedly misgendered” by a physician and an office assistant at a walk-in clinic in December 2017... The decision details how Thorne professed a “heightened sensitivity to transphobia.” It also describes how the complainant threw medical files onto the floor, swore and called the medical receptionist a “bitch” for referring to Thorne as “she.” The receptionist was referring to health records that listed the patient (who had never been to the clinic before) as female. The physician also used female pronouns for Thorne based on information in health records. This led to a “confrontation” in the exam room, causing the physician to walk out, but not before Thorne called him an “asshole” for refusing to prescribe narcotic medications, and accused the physician of transphobia. Thorne’s complaint alleged the discrimination also included not being prescribed narcotics, and not having “gender reassignment surgery” (double mastectomy) wounds examined. The physician denies that Thorne asked for a wound assessment. Additionally, the clinic had two visible notices regarding its policy of not prescribing narcotics to new walk-in clients... Thorne introduced a claim of racial discrimination (that the clinic “treat[ed] him as a drug-seeking Black person”), in addition to the claim of discrimination based on gender identity/expression. This application was dismissed by the HRTO in February 2025. Thorne then applied for a judicial review in the courts. Judge Sachs’ resultant ruling cites a 2021 B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruling in which a “non-binary, gender fluid, transgender person who uses they/them pronouns” was awarded $30,000 for being misgendered while working as a waitress. Sachs pulled several paragraphs from that ruling to include in her own. That included this line: “When people use the right pronouns, they can feel safe and enjoy the moment. When people do not use the right pronouns, that safety is undermined and they are forced to repeat to the world: I exist.” There are two main problems with this entire circus of a legal case: the first is Canada’s institutional obsession with gender identity and the insistence that “misgendering” is some sort of devastating discrimination, rather than a minor (often accidental) faux pas; the second is that we would legally persecute a physician in this manner at a time when the country is struggling with a severe doctor shortage. We cannot afford to behave this way. The original HRTO decision states that Thorne “acknowledged that he used abusive language for both the doctor and the receptionist. He further acknowledged that the receptionist gave him referrals for other hospitals which he tossed away and said, ‘I don’t need them.’ He also testified that the whole incident with the doctor and the receptionist was less than 15 minutes, and the police never contacted him,” reads the decision. (The receptionist threatened to call police after Thorne threw items on floor and became verbally abusive.) To recap: a patient, behaving in an abusive manner, experienced a few minutes of distress, because medical staff referred to pronouns found in the medical record. This patient is now permitted to embroil medical professionals in years of costly legal battles over hurt feelings. All of this is absurd. According to the Canadian Medical Association, 6.5 million Canadians — and growing — lack regular access to a family doctor or nurse practitioner. In five years, we expect to be short 20,000 physicians across the country. Should we really be using lawfare to chase away the ones who are on the front lines of our already overburdened health-care system? Likewise, should we really award so much institutional time, power and resources to “misgendering” complaints? Might those resources be better allocated elsewhere? Canada just cannot seem to help itself."
Non-binary client wins discrimination case against Montreal-area hair salon - "When Alexe Frédéric Migneault suddenly began experiencing hair loss, they thought a haircut would be just the thing to help them feel confident again. But they didn't realize trying to book an appointment at a Montreal-area salon would lead them to a years-long legal challenge. That chapter came to a close for Migneault earlier this month, when Quebec’s Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Station10 hair salon in Longueuil, Que., to pay them $500 in damages as it ruled they were the victim of discrimination. It all started in 2023, when Migneault went to book an appointment for a haircut at the Station10 hair salon. Prices there are significantly cheaper when booking in advance and the only way to do that is by filling out an online form. At the time, the form forced Migneault to specify whether the service was for a man or a woman. "'Choose whichever' is something that is said a lot to non-binary people but it’s extremely tricky for us to do that," Migneault explained in an interview Wednesday. "As soon as we pick one of these two options, we force ourselves to become either completely invisible... or we have to come out... In an email chain attached to the tribunal ruling, salon staff explains the choice would have no bearing on the haircut itself and says they have never had issues accommodating people in the 2SLGBTQ+ community in the past. Migneault decided to take their case to Quebec's Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, known as the CDPDJ. In the meantime, the salon offered Migneault three free haircuts and changed its website to include a non-gendered option... Alexis Labrecque, the salon’s co-owner, said his colleagues would have been happy to cut Migneault’s hair, but when they did more research on the plaintiff they felt “extorted” because Migneault has made complaints about other businesses in the past. Migneault received wide recogntion in 2023 when they went on a hunger strike to pressure the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) to add a non-binary gender option – an X – to the province’s health insurance cards. After the salon refused to pay the damages, Migneault went above the commission to Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal, calling for more than $12,000 in emotional and material damages. They alleged the battle over the hair appointment contributed to the mental health issues they later faced, forcing them to go on sick leave at work... The salon is still trying to determine whether it will appeal. "Now, every business who uses gender for their clients, if they don't offer the non-binary selection they might be liable for lawsuits,” said Labrecque. “Many of our clients are sending us money asking us or telling us we should fight back in appeals.”... Celeste Trianon, founder of Juritrans legal clinic, said this situation is far from being an isolated incident. They say trans and non-binary people often feel unsafe trying out new businesses because they’ve experienced similar discrimination or traumatic experiences in the past. “[The ruling] sends the message that the treatment of transgender and non-binary people by so much of our private sector is intolerable,” said Trianon. “A lot of these folks are afraid from benefiting from these services because of the fact that they fear discriminatory treatment.""
If you charge non-binary people more than men or women, is that considered discrimination?
Bryony Dixon on X - "A long serving school trustee — totally vindicated for stating that transing kids is child abuse 7 years ago — lost his case at the BC Human Rights Tribunal. I dialled into the tribunal every day. You cannot fathom the ideological capture of Canada’s public institutions."
Nick Osmond-Jones 🇨🇦 on X - "Below is a passage from the decision. People really need to understand what this means: if you say you don't believe in gender identity, that's hate speech, and the BC Human Rights Tribunal will financially destroy you. This is groundbreaking, and not in a good way. Here is the quote: Throughout this process, Mr. Neufeld and his counsel were incredulous at the suggestion that, by attacking “gender ideology”, he was denying the existence of trans people. This is reflected in his closing submissions: "Gender ideology may be summarized as the belief system that everybody has a gender identity; that this gender identity is not determined by the biological sex of a person; that this gender identity therefore may be one of any number of gender identities such as masculine, feminine, “queer”, non-binary, or even more than one gender identity at a time; that anyone may assume any gender identity simply by self-identifying; and that a person actually is whatever gender identity that person thinks, regardless of biological sex. A believer of gender ideology therefore believes that if a person identifies as a man, that person actually is a man, regardless of whether the person is biologically male or female. As is to be expected, believers of this ideology do not regard it as a belief system at all, but rather as an accurate and true account of the world. The teacher witnesses in this case repeatedly testified to this. However, the inescapable fact is that beliefs such as the belief that people have gender identities independent of biological sex, can change gender, or can hold more than one gender identity at a time are just that: beliefs. They are not hard, concrete, observable facts such as water is wet and fire is hot. In this way, genderideology is no different than other belief systems, such as the belief system that people were created by a spirit-being (i.e. “God”), have a spirit themselves, and that spirit will live on in a spiritual place after the physical death of the body." We can think of no better example for how transpeople are denied than this passage. Transpeople are, by definition, people “whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth”: Hansman at para. 12. If a person elects not to “believe” that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not “believe” in transpeople. This is a form of existential denial: Oger (No. 7) at para. 61. It is not, as Mr. Neufeld argues, akin to religious beliefs. A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian. However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth."
🇨🇦 Women Exist ♀ on X - "The difference is that a person who is a Christian believes an intangible, invisible spirit outside of him or herself. This belief is personal, private, and does not demand anything of anyone else. Nobody has to actively do anything about the Christian’s belief. A person who believes in gender identity believes the immutably-sexed, tangible body is not not what it is. This belief is a not private. It is a public imposition, a demand for others’ action, a demand that everyone else deny the material reality of the claimant’s immutable sex, that everyone else participate in the fantasy belief. Everyone else must deny physical, material reality and both change his or her speech as well as accommodate the anti-reality fantasy, which affects the rights of other people."
Nick Osmond-Jones 🇨🇦 on X - "Precisely. This is the codification of gender ideology as state religion."
Thread by @TheArbourist on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "The BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling: you need to understand what is actually being argued in paragraph 19. Most people will focus on the headline and the money. The more important issue is the logic. It appears to collapse the distinction between recognizing a person and affirming a contested theory of sex and gender.
What this article argues in one paragraph: TL;DR: The BCHRT can punish discrimination without requiring Canadians to affirm a contested theory of sex and gender as the price of being considered non-discriminatory. Paragraph 19 matters because it blurs that line: it treats disagreement with a conceptual framework as “existential denial” of a person. That is a legal and civic problem, even for people who support anti-discrimination protections."
Don Wilson, LLB 🇨🇦 on X - "I am disturbed by the ruling against Mr. Neufeld and responses such as this. I am still trying to find the time to collect and express my thoughts on contentious facts about the Tumbler Ridge shooting - without succumbing to vitriol and hyperbole - and then this wild decision comes along. Our province is in trouble. I am not fast enough, not fit enough, not committed enough to countermand all of this. As of yet I am still unable to clearly understand, let alone articulate, exactly what wrongdoing Mr. Neufeld is supposed to have committed. I would like to steelman my opposition before I venture criticisms, but I am struggling even after an initial reading of the decision. As far as I've gotten, the best term I can think of to describe what the HRT is trying to punish is something like 'culpable discrimination'. Beyond that I'm honestly just struggling. At first impression, this ruling appears to make it illegal to:
> earnestly say or write the word 'transgenderism',
> express doubt about whether gender is a coherent concept
> Express the belief that gender transition interventions are inherently harmful to children (or others)
> Among other things.
Regardless of the veracity of these viewpoints, this ruling is a startling departure from all precedent respecting freedom of expression. From a different angle, I just don't understand how exactly anybody was discriminated against by Mr. Neufeld, beyond a trite meaning of that word. What services were denied? What right did he abridge? I've seen defensive arguments for the decision referencing Christianity, but the analogy doesn't make any sense. If it were proposed to introduce a school program that taught that Christians were "The Chosen" it would be perfectly legal, socially acceptable, and within ethical norms for a contrary speaker to opine that Christians are in fact deluded, or that teaching children Christ is divine amounts to child abuse. I would disagree with such statements and be offended by them, but they are certainly "permissible" opinions for people to hold and express, even if - or especially if - they have been tasked with deciding about its implementation.
This ruling seems to create or imply a kind of right to be free from being challenged or offended. I can't imagine this was ever the intention of the drafters of the HRC, and it seems terrifyingly out of line with decades of precedence on free expression in Canada. Are there now legally acceptable and unacceptable opinions in Canada, enforceable by crippling fine? This ruling sure seems to make it so. And related to comments on Christianity, the closest thing I can think of to what the HRT has done in this decision resembles blasphemy laws, which were last enforced in Canada in 1927. We long ago recognized the foolishness and malice of persecuting dissenting opinion. Frankly, the board and supporters of this decision fill me with fear. A body of people deciding what opinions are acceptable and unacceptable, backed by the power of the state is the body of a monster. We should all be on our guard against its adherents and seek to democratically bring an end to their leadership in public affairs."
David Eby on X - "The BC Human Rights Code exists to protect people from discrimination and exclusion. I’m appalled that the BC Conservatives support repealing protections for people based on race, gender and ability. In British Columbia, human rights should never be up for debate."
Nick Osmond-Jones 🇨🇦 on X - "Notice what the NDP are doing? They are mostly avoiding defending the Neufeld decision. Clearly they know it's a losing issue. Instead they are framing pushback against the decision as attacks on Human Rights. Of course they avoid saying what specific Human Rights they are defending: the right to sterilize children, the right to force people to pretend you are the opposite sex, the right for men to trespass in women's spaces. And with Neufeld, the right to prevent elected officials from questioning the state religion of gender. Don't let them get away with this linguistic fraud. They lie by using language that sounds nice, but covers up actions that are the opposite.
Human Rights=Oppression
Be Kind=Be Compliant
Gender Affirming Care=Delusion Affirming Cosmetic Procedures
Anti-Racism=Racism"
Wesley Yang on X - "People are laughing at the Quebec Human Rights Commission awarding a $500 judgment to a bald non-binary identified man who claimed that he was oppressed because a hair salon only offered men's and women's haircuts. But another Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in British Columbia has fined a man for refusing to parrot the false dogmas of the transgender movement, effectively making it illegal for anyone to disagree that a man claiming to be a woman becomes a woman by virtue of the claim. The tribunals are a totalitarian menace and must all be decommissioned."
John Cleese avoiding BC over crackdown on gender ideology criticism - "British comedy elder John Cleese has announced that he will be steering clear of British Columbia on an upcoming Canadian tour, owing to fears that he will be prosecuted for non-adherence to gender ideology. Cleese, 86, made the declaration in a Saturday social media post issued in response to a $750,000 fine being imposed on a former Chilliwack, B.C. school trustee who refuses to believe that gender is a “social construct.”... B.C. Human Rights Tribunal cases have been brought against non-citizens such as Cleese, and they’ve also been pursued against comedians making comments as part of a performance. In 2011, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ordered comedian Guy Earle to pay $15,000 to an audience member who had alleged “lasting physical and psychological effect” from her objection to his set."
Weird. We're told that only humourless right wingers are offended by comedy because they are thin-skinned losers
B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ignores science to silence debate on gender ideology - "Neufeld’s legal saga has dragged on for nearly a decade, encompassing defamation lawsuits, anti-SLAPP motions, hate-speech allegations and human-rights complaints. But Canadians need not wade through years of litigation to understand what’s at stake: the threat not only to freedom of expression, but also to freedom of belief, lies in one particular aspect of the tribunal’s definition of discrimination. The ruling declares that the “denial of trans identities” is discriminatory, effectively replacing the traditional meaning of unequal treatment with the idea that disbelief in gender identity itself is a form of discrimination. In his closing remarks, Neufeld stated plainly that he does not believe in gender identities and described gender-identity ideology as a “belief system” comparable to religion. The tribunal’s reaction was astounding, revealing a striking ignorance of the complexity of the gender debate. “We can think of no better example for how transpeople are denied than this passage. Transpeople are, by definition, people ‘whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth,’ ” states the ruling. The trouble is, this is simply not true. While that’s certainly one definition — the activist-crafted one — it is by no means the only one. Next came this astonishing statement: “If a person elects not to ‘believe’ that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not ‘believe’ in transpeople. This is a form of existential denial.” This is also incorrect. It is entirely possible to recognize that some people identify as transgender and present as the opposite sex without believing in the unscientific concept of gender identity. The ruling then rejects Neufeld’s claim that gender ideology is akin to religious belief, with a chillingly authoritarian declaration: “A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian. However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth.” Not only is this incorrect, the analogy is also misleading. What the ruling actually means is this: one need not believe in God to accept that someone is Christian; but to accept that someone is transgender, one must believe in the existence of gender souls. And with that, modern trans activism laid its cards on the table: believe what we tell you to believe, or be punished. A cascade of confusion flows from the tribunal’s fundamentally flawed reasoning. The term “gender ideology” — the belief system that posits that we all possess a gender identity and it is that which makes us men, women, boys or girls — is framed as a cunning “veneer” used by what the tribunal terms “anti-trans activists” to make themselves appear reasonable. The social contagion hypothesis, by far the most plausible explanation for the exponential surge in youth presenting to gender clinics in the 2010s, is dismissed as discrimination. Neufeld is accused of spreading “alarm and misinformation” for opposing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors — treatments now being paused, restricted or abandoned in many countries due to weak evidence and mounting concerns about harm. Then, in an ironic twist, the tribunal supports its accusation of misinformation by offering misinformation of its own, declaring that “gender affirming recognition and care… is life saving.” The adjudicators seem unaware of the United Kingdom’s Cass Review and a recent Finnish study. Neither found evidence that these interventions reduce suicide risk. The reality is that the tribunal ignores, or deliberately sidesteps, a whole credible, research-driven side of the gender debate: one that sees “gender identity” as an oversimplified label masking a complex mix of psychological, developmental and social factors. Within this category there are adult males with an erotic fixation on being female; homosexuals suffering from internalized homophobia; and adolescents with neurodiversity, psychiatric comorbidities or developmental confusion — all condensed into a single label that comes packaged with a drastic medical solution. These are not fringe theories; they are evidence-based explanations that provide a far deeper, richer understanding of transgender identification than any activist oversimplification ever could. In truth, Canada approached the gender debate backwards, enshrining the highly disputed, unscientific concept of gender identity into law without analysis or scrutiny. And by doing so, it allowed activists to brand even basic questions or concerns as discrimination or hate. Yet the real-world harms are now too great even for Canada to ignore, as detransitioners who had their youthful identities medicalized step forward and the country awakens to the consequences of eroding female-only spaces. Even with human rights tribunals acting like authoritarian zealots, the debate is on and its momentum is unstoppable. If Canadians care about the values upon which their nation was built, they must urgently reclaim one of their most fundamental freedoms — the right to decide what they believe and to speak the truth without fear."
TRA logic: if you disagree with them on the existence of a soul, you are literally saying that trans people do not exist
