Brazil high court rules homophobia punishable by prison
Brazil high court rules homophobia punishable by prison
You're viewing a single thread.
The title is click bait. It’s not homophobia it’s homophobic slurs that are being made a crime.
Is this gonna be like that one Canadian bill that Kermit the Frog was upset about, where it's the use of slurs as a form of harassment that's been made a crime?
Wasn't that one about FORCING you to say whatever pronouns the person wants instead of just not allowing you to use bad words?
Nope, you fell for Kermit's propaganda. The point of the Canadian one wasn't to force you to use people's actual pronouns and names, it was to update the law to protect trans people from actual discrimination.
Here's some light reading
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
In fact, it doesn't say literally anything about pronouns! You can use the wrong ones!
It might raise harassment to hate crime if you make a point of harassing someone by using the wrong pronouns/name repeatedly, as a form of targeted harassment, but even then it would take several court cases before it had a chance to rise to that level.
They can use the new name a woman gains when she marries someone, or when someone changes their name by deed poll, but they can't handle calling someone their new name when they transition.
It's got fuck all to do with a new name and 100% because they're sad, small-minded bigots.
I disagree. I couldn't care less if you're a trans or whatever but if you make a scene when I don't call you a zer then you're an idiot and it has nothing to do with your sexuality. It's with the fact that you're acting like an entitled prick.
In my native language our pronouns are gender neutral and always has been. You can indentify as whatever you like and you're already included. That seems like the obviously better way to solve this "issue" instead of coming up with a boatload of new ones. Unless it's tattooed on your forehead I'm not going to remember.
Again, the law says nothing about pronouns.
Completely and totally irrelevant in this discussion. Only one case has been brought to the CHRT based on neopronouns, and it was dismissed.
Who is talking about names...?
Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
So, yes, it forces people to use the correct pronouns.
I mean, kinda? Like, you could say that the law forces you to not throw rocks, but really the law only cares about you throwing rocks at other people and their things. Nobody is gonna call the cops on you because you called someone a ma'am when they're actually a sir, unless you do it repeatedly as a form of discrimination.
You can't force me to use the right pronouns for you, because we're just two dudes passing on the street. If I was your boss, it might be a different story.
I'm specifically talking about the harassment case. It codifies repeatedly using the wrong pronoun as a crime.
Do I think that behavior is bad or morally wrong...Yes.
Do I think it's a crime? No.
It's a slippery slope when things like this become law.
What are you talking about? In the case of harassment (or, more broadly, discrimination), it's not the use of incorrect pronouns that gets you in trouble, it's the discrimination. The use of incorrect pronouns is not the deciding factor on whether a person is discriminating, it's only one piece of the puzzle, and the CHRT has already dismissed a case regarding refusal to use neopronouns because there wasn't enough reason to consider it discrimination.
In the link you sent, they explain that pronouns are whatever the person being referred decides, since there is nothing explicit.
So what is stopping someone from saying their pronouns are something ridiculous and if you don't use them for that exact reason you're in violation?
Did you even read the article? In violation of what?
If I say my pronouns are they/them, and you refer to me with she/her pronouns, that does not, and will never, constitute a crime. You're either willfully ignorant of what C-16 actually did, or you're willfully spreading transphobic propaganda. Either way, I'm done with this argument.
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
If I repeatedly refer to you by pronouns you don't identify with it's a pretty low bar to be considered discrimination or harassment, especially in today's environment.
The rest I'm sure you can follow.
First you would have to use the wrong pronouns for me repeatedly. Then I would have to file a complaint. Then we would have to go to court. The court would have to rule that what you did constitutes discrimination and harassment. If they do, there would be an order for you to apologize, or go to sensitivity training. You would have to refuse to do either, and then another court would have to determine whether what you did constitutes a hate crime.
This is not a low bar.
It's been six fucking years. Show me literally one person who's being convicted of a hate crime because of C-16, who only used the wrong pronouns for someone.
The first point, I assumed when you said what you said was already considering it was purposefully (my bad, I guess).
The second point is up to you, fair enough.
The third in my opinion is almost guaranteed.
The rest, if the first point went how I thought would also be guaranteed.
Also, there would not be a visit to another court because, technically speaking, the punishment would be for not accepting the first punishment demanded by the court.
And my point is not that this is gonna happen for sure, but that lazy laws with (un)intended openings in general have always been harmful to everyone and we should strive to have things as clear as possible.
So we're in agreement that if you intentionally harass someone, you may be charged with harassment, and that simply using the wrong pronouns while not harassing someone isn't harassment. What are you upset about again?
Okay, but is this still good news or not?
Even so. Seems excessive. Is one not allowed to be a rude ass?
You're allowed to be a rude ass. You're not allowed to harass.
I guess you have a point in that you can do worse than a homophobic slur and get away with it. It’s like job discrimination laws, you can still discriminate ugly people which is just as bad as discrimination of a protected class.
I don’t have a good answer, if it’s any consolation they can be just as vile or more so long as they don’t use homophobic slurs.
A bit off-topic. You actually have a very good point aboutjobs discrimination.