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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Muh free speech! They’re forcing me to use whatever name someone wants rather than calling him n****r boy. *clutchest pearls*
What’s next? Not using pronouns to harrass and demean people intentionally?
Removed by mod
Normal non-fascist-reactionary people have the ability to distinguish between ridiculous bad faith pearl clutching (what you are doing now) and earnest expressions of identity.
My response is always to use whatever pronouns the person I’m talking to says are right. If it’s all alt-right troll, oh well. Maybe they’ll have half a moment of self reflection and realize how ridiculous it would be for nonbinary folk to lie about their pronouns all the time, day in and day out. Maybe they’ll realize that it would be exhausting having to lie just for the sake of… attention? Which wouldn’t make sense in the first place, because unfortunately the majority of attention that you get from being nonbinary in public is explicitly hatred.
I know that hoping for conservatives to actually reflect on how they make people feel is a pipe dream, but if a man can’t dream, what can he do?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The only one pulling shit out of their ass is you and your ridiculous pearl clutching slippery slope bullshit. If you don’t do stupid shit, you won’t get in trouble (and before you go all pedantic douche, I’m meaning in the context of gender discrimination and harassment).
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.
Progressive Brazil? Dayum
deleted by creator
Yet their politicians have no problem bending over for corporations.
Good to see. While our conservatives in the USA wanna try: https://lemmy.ml/post/3930440
Removed by mod
Nice to see the pendulum swing to an opposite extreme from Bolsanaro… Creating laws to make certain kinds of speech punishable by law certainly won’t blow up in the progressive camp’s face once another right-wing demagogue is elected, no sir.
Ohh stfu hate speech has always been punishable by law and a demagogue will do whatever they want. Precedent doesn’t matter. “You better not strike back or the bully might do something in the future” is the cry of cowards and centrists.
Yes, clearly believing that hearing certain words and phrases is so injurious to human wellbeing that their use needs to be criminalized is the position of the utmost resilience and bravery. How silly of me. These sorts of wokescold laws contribute effectively nothing to the material wellbeing of any kind of marginalized group, and if you honestly believe that there won’t be political blowback from this, I think you’re out of touch with the general public. Even if the law itself is toothless and cannot be applied maliciously by the other side, the right wing media is going to make hay out of it, riling up millions of blue collar, conservative voters against the perceived excesses of Lula’s administration. It blows a lot of a new and somewhat fragile administration’s political capital for effectively no material benefit.
@burnedoutfordfiesta lol. The right is doing the same thing look at laws like “don’t say gay” in Florida or banning books in schools bc after decades they are too “woke”. There’s nothing sacred about speech. I believe we should err on the side of allowing more speech, but threats have been criminalized for a long time, and in a lot of places so is defamation. Both sides do this and it doesn’t really affect elections. It takes more than that for people to change their votes. Look at Israel.
Yes, you’re absolutely right that the right wing does this, too, and it’s just as foolish. The antiwoke culture war has been a massive failure for the American GOP and very likely cost them seats in the midterms. It absolutely affects elections. Trying to police speech is a bad idea in general, regardless of ideology. Threats, defamation, and harrassment are already illegal. New laws like these do not meaningfully protect anyone from those, but they do erode protections for free speech and also piss off vast swathes of the general population, who will usually manifest some political backlash against the party that implemented them. I’m a leftist and I’d prefer not to have Brazil slide back into Bolsanarismo before actually meaningful reforms can be implemented.
As an aside, Lemmy is becoming even worse than Reddit for people being totally unwilling to entertain alternate analyses of politics. Protip: just because someone isn’t parroting the same virtue-signaling talking points over and over again, it doesn’t make them a Nazi. My account was apparently reported over this conversation, so to whomever did that, good job trying to run me off rather than engage with my arguments, I guess. Enjoy your circle jerk.
@burnedoutfordfiesta we are just going to have to disagree on the effects of these laws on elections. The problem is that people only see these laws as a problem when they disagree with them (by people I mean the middle). On top of that, when you use the power of the state to silence dissidents, people feel like they can’t change things and give up.
@burnedoutfordfiesta For example, I’m not sure why you were reported (I didn’t see anything wrong in your post) and I can appreciate your frustration, but your response is a good example of this. Ending with “enjoy the circle jerk” is exactly the result the result we get from voters.
Fair points. Yeah, I hope it was clear that that last bit wasn’t addressed to you, but rather the person reporting me. I appreciate your actually being civil and responding to the points I’m making. I wish that was more the norm.
Its not that you dont agree. Its not that you dont understand. You dont want to understand.
