(That day was February 26, 2026)
The vote was 50 against. 37 in favour.
Names, districts, and email addresses of all MLAs voting ‘yea’ included
(That day was February 26, 2026)
The vote was 50 against. 37 in favour.
Names, districts, and email addresses of all MLAs voting ‘yea’ included
Convince you of what makes sense? You seem to think Mr Neufeld was fined for saying “there are two genders” but that’s not what he said.
Do you know the statements that made evidence for the trial in the first place, before asking for being convinced of anything?
Edit:
this is a like asking how many colors are there in the rainbow. Most people will name 5 to 7 colors, but the answer is “all visible colors, which is a spectrum and not a set amount; the fact that we usually name the common ones doesn’t mean we there exists 7 colors only”. The reason this question doesn’t have a right answer isn’t that “we can’t agree on it”; everyone who understands gender agrees the question itself is wrong because it starts from bad assumptions.
Sure I’ve read reports from human rights lawyers that make it sound not so cut and dry, and even CBC interviewed someone who outlines as much, and thats the CBC which is generally pretty far left as far as trans issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1w7tAQAb6k
As far as the rainbow analogy, you say theres no good answer to the question, but you think it righteous to punish someone for a wrong answer?
I sympathize with trans people, I just sympathize more with free speech. Without free speech we have something akin to Hovels power to the powerless.
Why do you believe this is what’s happening? What parts of what this guy had as evidence against him that you think should get protected as free speech? Quote something specific that was raised as evidence