First: Two things I learned from this complaint.
That the latest fashionable definition of “gender” might be forced upon the Canadian government (and, by extension, all private persons) by the CHRC. Someone could be a “female with male anatomical structure” and demand a change to their documents on that basis. (Really, officer, I’m actually 19 with 14-year-old anatomical structure!)
And, that the CHRC demands that all parties refrain from discussing complaints that are in-process with the public or the media. Can’t shine any light where the cockroaches crawl…
Second: Barbara Hall’s choice of wording is disturbing. In a letter castigating Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s decision to sell off some TCHC housing, she consistently refers to “individuals and groups protected under the Code”. Does that imply that the rest of us losers aren’t protected under the code? Some humans get human rights, and others don’t?
Third: The OHRC’s forum on how they can further curtail religious freedom got a visitor that I’m sure wasn’t exactly welcome. A Christian political advocacy group presented to Barbara Hall that the integrity of faith communities are under threat by the current interpretation of the Code. The OHRC’s response?
Some OHRC staff commented on how it is important for there to be diversity within a faith group (e.g. why it is good for a Christian congregation to have an atheist organist – it provides exposure to diversity.)
So it is the role of the Commission to force faith groups to accept atheists for “exposure to diversity”? Does that mean bare-headed swimsuit models in mosques too?