Letter to Senators - SIGN AND SEND NOW!

November 23 th, 2016 Dear Sir/Madam, We are a group of citizens concerned about the brevity of the study period accorded to Bill C-16, which introduces the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” into the Canadian Human Rights Act and our Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this Bill presents several problems. First, the absence of a logical definition for these terms in the bill is problematic. According to the Minister of Justice: “Gender identity and expression are now found in most provincial human rights codes. Commissions, tribunals, and courts are expected to elaborate the meaning of such grounds in a reasonable way, with reference to the purpose of the law. They clarify these grounds, and indeed all grounds, through application of real-life examples, allowing the law to respond to individual situations in line with its purpose. ” It is generally up to the legislator to specify the breadth of its laws, and both elected officials and senators should require those be defined before being asked to adopt them. It is the very minimum voters can expect from our representatives. Second, the assessment of the potential impacts on women and girls (females) has been completely left out by the House of Commons and both the 1st and 2nd meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are very concerned that, notwithstanding the numerous impacts on biological women, the government has not conducted the required sex-differentiated comparative analysis (GBA). The impacts of this Bill on women and girls are multifarious: women’s spaces, such as prisons, shelters for victims of violence, and shelters for homeless women are segregated by sex in order to ensure our safety. Additionally, women-relevant programming exists in order to ensure equitable access to certain activities, like sports or employment, STEM education, political representation. Without these protections, a 6 foot - 250 lb male could demand inclusion on a female sport team or to be permitted compete against females, since “gender identity” is defined broadly, in Canada, as something decided only based on self-identification. Third, we are concerned at the missing democratic process surrounding these matters. How many citizens were consulted on this all profound change? How many public discussions, town hall meetings, or surveys have been offered, in order to allow the public to consider, discuss, and offer feedback with regard to the issues at hand? For millennia, “man” and “woman” have been defined by biological sex. Women's hard-fought for rights and protections exist on this basis as well, as progressive citizens understand that women and men are socialized from birth towards domination or subordination, based on their sex. Gender roles only exist in order to reinforce sexist ideas about men and women, but are not, in fact, innate or chosen. Women, for example, were shut out of political processes and the public sphere, more broadly, based on these gender roles and their acceptance as something internal and unchangeable. Now, Canadian legislators are very quickly pushing through a bill that will move us back to those days, reinforcing the idea that "gender identity" is not a social invention, socially imposed through various means, but something internal and natural. Do Canadian citizens understand this and the repercussions of such a change? Do they understand that citizens could be prosecuted for incitement to hatred on account of the indefinable concept of "misgendering?" The notion of "gender" itself is a regressive one, as is its sister, "gender identity." These ideas deserve much more rigorous consideration and debate than has been offered to date. Finally, in actuality, adopting Bill C-16 means that the government is erasing the criteria of biological sex, an objective criteria protected by the Charter, and replacing it with the ill-defined, vague notion of "gender identity." This means each individual will be able to define their “gender” on a whim, rather than based on material reality. Such an immense change merits much deeper reflection and analysis on the part of government and Parliament, and at the very least, should engage a sex-differentiated analysis. As you may know, the GBA+ is in accordance with the principals upheld by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Prime Minister himself stated, in his mandate letter to the Minister of Status of Women, “As Minister of Status of Women, your overarching goal will be to ensure government policy, legislation, and regulations are sensitive to the different impacts that decisions can have on men and women.” We believe that the government must not abandon its commitments towards women and girls. We ask that you require the government first conduct a Gender-based analysis (GBA) based on biological sex before this bill is permitted to move forward. The Senate has an obligation to carefully examine bills in order to ensure they are the best they can be. The Senate is responsible for protecting the rights and interests of Canadians in all regions, especially minority groups and those who do not often get a chance to present their opinions to Parliament. We hope that the questions and concerns of citizens Canada – particularly those of women -- will be heard. We await your response, and trust you will make an informed decision.