Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel Orders Government to Pay out $50,000 in Damages for Failing to Validate Imaginary Genders

By April Halley 1 comment

A ruling on November 4th from the Manitoba Human Rights Adjudication Panel has awarded $50,000 in damages to a complainant who had accused that province’s Vital Statistics Agency of discrimination on the basis of gender identity because they were refused an option of a non binary sex designation on their birth certificate. Due to a publication ban the complainant is known only as “T.A.”

In 2013 T.A. applied for a birth certificate. They maintain that this was important because they were experiencing hardships such as homelessness and ill health and having documents that reflect their pangender identity would help “ameliorate the situation”. This request was denied because the only available options are male or female.

Adjudicator Dan Manning maintained that:

“In my view, from an objective perspective, I find the seriousness of the conduct to be the high end. Gender identity is a part of our concept of selfhood. The Director’s practice to not allow non-binary designations of sex designation and only permit male or female designations was effectively the government refusing to acknowledge T.A.’s agency and personhood”

In addition to the payout Vitals Statistics has 180 days to revise its criteria for birth certificates in Manitoba and permit a third option in the category of sex designation.

The adjudicator maintains that a sex designation on a birth certificate “is simply a reference, marker, or category that is congruent to an applicant’s gender identity”. Mr. Manning cites the incoherent concept sometimes knows as legal sex (the ability to change your sex marker from male to female or vice versa so your desire, and not reality, is reflected) as evidence that sex designation itself is nothing more than a marker for gender identity.

This is quite extraordinary as the concepts of “pangender” and “non binary” are, in fact, spiritual beliefs that have no relationship whatsoever with the biological reality of whether one is male or female.

It is impossible to define “gender identity” without relying on sexist stereotypes. This is outlined quite well in the ruling when the complainants felt gender variation is described thus:

“T.A. may choose to wear clothing typically associated with male and female gender. T.A. pursues interests which may be considered stereotypically male and others stereotypically female. “

People can wear whatever clothes they wish to in Canada. People can pursue any interest they wish irrespective of sex role stereotypes in this country because it is a free country. As silly as this ruling may seem it is quite serious. It serves as a warning to the other 7 jurisdictions in Canada that have yet to make this change and get in line with the state’s new religion

1 Comment

Critical Thinker

Nov 11, 2019, 10:17 am Reply

They should appeal. HR Tribunals are quasi-judicial and don’t actually have the authority/jurisdiction to hand out these sorts of judgements, let alone $50K awards. It’s this sort of shit that puts a literal chill on free-expression. They are literally extorting/blackmailing people into silence – “speak truth, be sued, pay lots.”.

Which is exactly why Canadians need to challenge C-16. I feel hopeful in light of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013-2014 after legislators realized it was likely to be abused, much like C-16 is now. Section 13 obviously isn’t about ‘gender markers’, but it’s relevant as far as a tiny minority of bullies & bad-actors compelling the vast majority of rational people into pandering to their every whim. If people can’t change their age or their race on birth certificates there’s no reason they should have a legal ‘right’ to change their sex markers either (genuine intersex people aside – imo they should be able to be recognized by whatever marker they prefer – but it should still require oversight, and not just running over to the DMV and filling out a fucking form on your lunch break).

”In 2008, Liberal MP Keith Martin proposed a private member’s motion (M-446) urging Parliament to repeal section 13. Martin described the legal test of “likely to expose” as “a hole you could drive a Mack truck through,” and said it is being applied by “rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can’t say.” … “Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noted that under Section 13, “Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence.” He has said that when he and other human rights activists advocated the creation of human rights commissions they “never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” … “Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists stated that Human rights commissions “were never meant to act as language nannies. The current system allows complainants to chill the speech of those they disagree with by entangling targets in a human rights bureaucracy that doesn’t have to operate under the same strict rules of defence as a court.” – Wikipedia

Leave a Reply