> The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce.

IANAL and dunno if it formally passes as "a crime", but

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1694958/54-dawson...

[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such.

I suppose C-16 will now allow this to be called discrimination on the basis of gender, not sex. Whatever.

I wonder if it's a hate crime in Canada to claim that the problem of misgendering is not a crime and "an absurd farce". Be careful what you post :)

I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller.

Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.

What about purposefully, what about if someone proclaims I must use Zir to refer to them and I refuse...

Then just say you or they, as you normally would. Why talk to this person in the first place if they upset you so much?

I am I fact a Canadian citizen, not sure why you’d assume otherwise.

Also, I fail to see how providing a few links as context for the GPs last paragraph as the P requested should elicit such a rude and threatening response from you.

You really flipped the script, eh? Marching down a city street saying you hate an entire religion is threatening. I said intolerance won't make you many friends here, which I'm sure you've discovered.

Self Awareness Zero....

So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"

It's not that binary here. You seem to believe that the law should be binary on the subject, but you have to realize that the circumstances where it would be applied may not be interpreted so.

In this circumstance I think it would come down to tone, and perceived intent. If you were to march with hateful picket signs screaming obscenities in front of a church on Sunday you might be asked to leave by the police for reasons besides hate speech.

First, you'll likely be confronted by people passing by who think you're being an asshole.

If you were renting a hall, or holding a speech at a university about your researched theories on why we should change something in our society or petitioning government and other social groups, you wouldn't have a problem (except maybe personal. Fundamentalist/Evangelist groups can get as bad here as in the US)

That's a humanist viewpoint you've described in this comment and I agree to an extent (some people truly benefit from religion and I won't judge them if they don't judge me). But many others see religious people (often of specific religions) as the enemy and not as fellow human beings oppressed by their own beliefs.