Thread by @DetransCanada

Thread on Meeting 15 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Watch it live or stream it later here:
parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/Pow…

We had been invited by @LDBildy of @JCCFCanada to share her time today, but we were not allowed to participate at the last minute.

Lisa Bildy incorporated some of our most salient concerns in her statement to the committee, and we are very grateful for that.

You can read our full analysis of #BillC6 on our site here:
detranscanada.com/brief-on-bill-…

I'm going to begin transcribing what I believe to be the most salient parts of the hearing.

11:20:32 @LDBildy on behalf of @JCCFCanada:
I'm a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Objectively harmful, coercive practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation, as we've just heard about, should be banned.

That is what Canadians think of when they hear the term conversion therapy. But when it comes to gender identity improperly conflated with sexual orientation, as in this bill, what we think we are talking about and what activists mean and are pushing for, are not the same.

By conversion, they mean talk therapy or watchful waiting to help a child or adolescent become comfortable in their own body or that addresses other mental health concerns or past traumas, something that about 85% of them will do, given that space.

That is what they want banned on pain of criminal sanction.

When they say affirmation, they mean rejection the body a child was born in and embarking on a path of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, multiple surgeries and a lifetime of medication and dire consequences such as sterility and loss of sexual function.

There's a whole industry developing around this conversion of kids and it is being encouraged with the influence of gender activists on social media and even in our schools.
Yes that is the real conversion here. It is endorsed and supported by this bill. #BillC6

The LGB Alliance Canada report, which I implore you to read, speaks of lesbians and gays saying to each other in whispered conversations "thank god I am not a gay kid growing up right now, if I had been there's no question I would have identified as trans and been sent for SRS"

Yet we have to pretend that talk therapy, a cautious, measured approach, is the danger. A free society that supports individual rights, as Canada is supposed to be, would allow parents, children and health professionals to find the best path for each unique child.

Not have the state pre-ordain that transition is the ONLY permissible option. It is not for the government to dictate such outcomes and doing so in our submission contravenes the rights of parents and children, guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter.

The bill needs to remove gender identity entirely.
#BillC6 #StopBillC6

Other countries are beginning to realize the horrors that have unfolded from allowing and encouraging kids to self diagnose at the behest of gender ideologues.

Progressive Sweden has shifted course dramatically just in the last few months, and in the UK we are seeing positive signs of this. The #KeiraBell case last week was ground breaking.

It confirmed what many parents, therapists and other medical professionals had been warning about for years; the affirmation bandwagon puts kids on an irreversible path to permanent changes which will adversely impact their physical health, bone density and other complications

and likely cause them sterility and an inability to experience sexual pleasure. The court reviewed the evidence with some horror and concluded that once children go on puberty blockers, they almost invariably proceed through all the stages of transition

And that children under 16 and those likely under 18, cannot possibly provide informed consent to those consequences.

Canada's going in the wrong direction, we're being steamrolled by an aggressive ideology that changes our language, undermines our usual safeguards relating to children, demonizes as bigots those who are cautious,

refuses to consider evidence which counters the approved narrative and demands complete fealty on pain of social cancellation. Standing up to this is not transphobic, it is being child-centric and rational and it is necessary.

And it in no way prevents adults who wish to transition from doing so, or even children whose parents and a licensed health professional who thinks that transition is the best outcome for that child. But it isn't the right outcome for all children.

I was surprised to learn yesterday that the committee would not be hearing from important voices like LGB Canada and Detrans Canada. Detransitioners are ignored because they shatter the narrative.

The preamble to the bill says that it's "a myth" that people can change their gender. But those who detransition are proof that either gender can be changed or that what some young people go through when they say they are trans is indeed a phase that they might simply outgrow.

Detransitioners are usually homosexual, mostly young people who have gone through medical transition and have some serious regrets. #Detrans

Many self diagnosed as having gender dysphoria as minors and subsequently accessed irreversible hormone blockers, cross sex hormones and double mastectomy without any form of psychological assessment, all by the age of 16.

I invited a member of Detrans Canada to share my time today but that was not allowed.

They have 3 major concerns with the bill as written which I share:
1) that affirming every single with gender distress or confusion as trans, including medical transition, will definitely result in more detransitioners in the long-term.

2) It will be illegal for mental health professionals to support detransitioners because they do not seek affirmation but wish to reconcile with their sex.

3) Minors who have experienced medical malpractice through unnecessary medical transition will have no course for redress because service providers will cite #BillC6, which mandates affirmation as the only legal treatment.

I encourage members as part of their due diligence in considering this bill, to read their excellent submission and testimonials, as well as those of LGB Canada. It's important to make fully informed decisions and get this right. Thank you.

You can read our testimonials here:
detranscanada.com/personal-testi…

11:27:50 MP Rob Moore:
To Lisa Bildy, your submission to the justice committee states that the definition of conversion therapy is over-broad and as a result does not adequately cover harmful practices. Can you elaborate on that?

I'm looking at the definition and it says 'designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour'

if that definition is problematic, could you explain to the committee how you feel it is so?

11:28:36 @LDBildy for @JCCFCanada:
Well it puts people on a one way path and I'm speaking specifically of 'gender identity', because it only allows transition to the opposite gender, so it specifically prohibits any efforts to return to 'cisgender' or to remain 'cisgender'

So it prohibits a whole range of therapies and approaches and desires of individuals that should be legally allowed and that a health professional might reasonably recommend.

11:29:10 MP Rob Moore:
Again, one of the talking points we heard earlier from the government on this repeatedly, is that this bill would not criminalize non-coercive, voluntary counselling such as between a pastor or a faith based counsellor and a congregant in a church context

And given that the government claims that this legislation will protect these conversations, I'm wondering if you could explain wether you feel this would be true in practice, given the current definition of conversion therapy in the bill.

When the Minister was here, there's things he said in his opening remarks when he introduced the bill, there's things that they said on the justice department website of what this bill would or wouldn't do but by the plain reading, of the definition,

it's not clear that the bill will do exactly what the Justice Minister says so can you speak to that situation, that the minister claims is not captured by this bill but I remain concerned could be captured by the email?

11:30:22 @LDBildy:
Well the fact that so many people have remained concerned that it might be captured means that it's not clear and it needs to be much more clearly drafted.

I was also concerned to hear @MinJusticeEn say that 'legitimate conversations' would not be caught up in this bill. Well who is defining what is legitimate and what isn't legitimate? Is that something that is going to be determined by activists?

I think that people will be targeted, if anyone finds out about it, that's the world we live in and if it isn't patently obvious and clear in #BillC6, then people will face sanctions for that.

11:31:10 MP Rob Moore:
I guess that brings me to another point. The minister has referenced these words that he claims, describe what the bill does, the website describes but the bill purports to do but

as a lawyer, you and I know that if someone is being charged under criminal code legislation, the judge is going to look at what's in the legislation, what's in the criminal code, not necessarily on some old website from years back...

Could you maybe point out to the committee your views on getting the definition right vs things that the minister may say or things the department may post on their website?

[There was not enough time for Lisa Bildy to respond to Moore's question]

11:34:44 Nicholas Schiavo of No Conversion Canada:
Just to reiterate, there are currently 7 provinces and territories with some form of conversion therapy legislation and currently 14 municipalities have some form of bylaw, policy or declaration regarding conversion therapy...

To your question I think the gold standard in terms of municipal bylaws would be that of Calgary which does apply to all ages and I think as we've seen more municipal bylaws happen, that tends to be the standard.

11:37:52 MP Arif Virani:
Ms Bildy, I presume we're not going to agree on certain things but can we agree that you mentioned, that it is not in the best interest of the child to be forced into a therapy in which they are being coerced? Do we agree on that point?

11:38:12 @LDBildy:
Well yes, except for the fact that, what we're hearing from the court in the UK last week is that children are not competent to give informed consent to what follows after a course of puberty blockers, so you have to bear that in mind.

I certainly believe that with respect to children's sexual orientation, that they should not be forced to undergo anything that makes them try to change that,

I agree with you completely on that, but gender identity is a totally different kettle of fish, it's being strung along here in a bill that really should focus on sexual orientation only.

11:42:15 MP Rheal Fortin:
My question is for Ms Bildy. If I understood correctly, you are concerned about the definition in clause 5, that is in the criminal code 320.101.

I would like to know how you understand that definition, what would be allowed, what would not be allowed under the current wording of the bill?

11:43:05 @LDBildy:
Right well my concern is that 'gender identity' should be removed entirely. Its interesting when you hear what the people are saying now that we should ensure that 'gender expression' is subject to this bill as well.

There's a lot of convoluted inconsistencies in all of this I mean when you think about it, 'gender expression' allows children for example, express themselves outside of what we would consider stereotypical gendered behaviour.

But typicaly now we find that when kids a very tomboyish female or a v effeminate male they often now despite the fact we should be embracing their expansion of gender categories theyre getting put on a transition bandwagon & suggested 2 them that perhaps theyre in the wrong body

So even what people are asking here, to include both 'gender expression' & 'gender identity', are mutually exclusive. And so you really need to go back to the drawing board on this and I think the easiest thing to do is to get rid of gender identity entirely, just doesn't belong

11:44:21 MP Rheal Fortin:
But you agree, if I understand correctly, with the proposal that conversion therapy should be banned so if there was a professional that wanted to change a young person's identity or influence that child in either direction,

that is by saying to the young person you are in the wrong body or you have the wrong orientation. So given that these are minors, that would not be allowed, is that correct?

11:46:19 @LDBildy:
Ok yes, the bill though only allows the transition in one direction, you see, when you say that people can be influencing either way, well only one is banned under this legislation, only one way, 'to change a person's gender identity to cisgender' is banned

So if somebody is trying to change them, in another direction, that's ok and in fact, it's specifically allowed as 'a treatment or service as relates to a person's gender transition' so its a one way street.

11:47:20 @r_garrison:
I also just want to say as the author of the bill, which originally provided protection against discrimination on the basis of 'gender identity' and 'gender expression',

I'm always disappointed when transphobic arguments are brought before the committee in public, even if they're dressed up in legal language and especially when they're connected to a false narrative about detransitioning and stated as a false concern for children.

11:53:10 MP Cooper:
I will address my first question to Ms Bildy, perhaps you wish to pick up on where Mr Moore left off, namely how assurances for example on the Department of Justice website would hold up in court relative to what is actually in the law.

11:53:38 @LDBildy :
Well I think you're going to hear another witness in the next hour who is a criminal lawyer and can speak to that very specifically but certainly in my experience,

the letter of the law that is part of the criminal code and on the charge that someone is going to be issued is what you would be looking at primarily, most lawyers are not going to go digging around on old websites trying to find some exception.

It might become relevant to a degree but I that any exceptions and clarity needs to be put directly into the bill for maximum protection.

11:45:13 MP Cooper:
Thank you for that. You cited the recent UK High Court decision a couple of a times, I just wonder if you could be clear in terms fo the connection or relevancy between the findings in that decision and the subject matter of this bill?

11:54:30 @LDBildy :
Well what you're basically endorsing with #BillC6 is for kids to self diagnose their own gender identity, potentially as young as 3 or 5 years old and to have that confirmed and supported and pushed through without any question.

You're talking about 10 or 12yo kids going puberty blockers at their will and wish, without anybody being able to say, maybe this is a bad idea, maybe the fact that 10-12 kids in your class have all decided they're trans might be influencing you here,

maybe this isn't something that is in your best interest. We're not allowed to say that. We have to accept the child's self diagnosis of their gender identity and then allow them, if they want,

and they're all taught now on the internet how to push for puberty blockers and make the arguments that allow them to get those, that they will be then on this path which they will not be able to get off. 99% of those kids once they start on puberty blockers, they go the distance

It's the wrong decision for many of them and they will regret it later. This is happening in Europe and we are not far behind. In the UK, the decision dealt with a young woman who had transitioned fully, had had a mastectomy and so on and came to regret it and

she challenged the fact that she was not given any proper therapy or diagnosis of other underlying conditions from which she suffered and she was basically pushed through because of dogma

like member Garrison is talking about; that it's transphobic to suggest that you should care about children and their wellbeing. That is just wrong and you are going to pay a price for that one day.

11:56:23 MP Virani:
Madam Speaker on a point of order, I firmly agree that we can disagree without being disagreeable and comments like that are not appropriate when they're volleyed at any MP, including the members of this committee.

I would ask the chair to perhaps caution the witnesses in their uses of terminology. Thank you

11:56:54 MP Findley:
We have heard testimony in this committee both in the last bill and this one, where witnesses attacked, that's the word, attacked other witnesses and attacked MPs, without comment from my colleague Mr Virani.

If it was inline with his thinking with his thinking on these bills, you cannot say to one witness 'you cannot take issue with other testimony' and not do it for each and every one. That is totally improper

11:57:34 MP Moore:
Well in a similar vain to Madam Findley, the time for Mr Virani's intervention would have been when Mr Garrison started throwing out offensive terms and disparaging our witnesses.

Many of them, its probably their first time being before parliamentary committee, this is their time, let's listen to them but I think its a two way street and respect has to come from out MPs towards the witnesses as well, we shouldn't disparage any of them.

I think every witness here today has brought something of value and that's what we're discussing so wether its witness to witness or parliamentarian to parliamentarian or between parliamentarians and witnesses, lets just have a respectful dialogue. Thank you Madam Chair.