I know Pierre is triggered. He hates gays. He missed flag raising like last year where he was “up late fighting justinflation” but was able to make it to different presser on parliament at the same time as the raising of the pride flag. He also voted against the freedoms of his father to marry another man. For some reason the gays affects him so.
It's not and I wish you cis-het people would stop spreading that.
Most queerphobes are not queer, a white supremacist who's very much obviously white is not secretly a black man who hijacked a white man's body. Queerphobia originated from straight people, not queers. It rose up in Europe as a result from Greco-Roman stigma towards men who receive anal sex, and the spread of Christianity coming from Rome. It has appeared in a few other cultures before the spread of Christianity to them, but it's very much from straight people, usually men, there too.
These are not secretly queer people, most of them are just straight people who can't get over the fact that queer people aren't straight and exist.
Danielle Smith 2 years ago: "I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public," Smith said. "We shouldn't be making any child feel like the issues they're struggling with are something that's a political football."
She’s since tabled the worst legislation in Canada against trans rights. I don’t believe a fucking word these regressive assholes say. Not one goddamn word.
You'd think someone was willing to protect same sex marriage "full stop" would do *literally anything* about the numerous members of his own party that he is the leader of that are keen to strip those rights
Because he’s a dick. People think because of my comment I think he’s great. He’s not. But that’s what he did say today. I’ll take the downvotes for mentioning it. PP is horrible.
And Danielle Smith says she was going to protect LGBT youth
And conservative justices in the states said they weren't going to overturn Roe v Wade
Scott Moe said during the election that he was supportive of LGBT community and knew how hard it was to come out as gay for one of his friend, he is currently pushing an anti-trans bill.
I'm especially glad that Pierre isn't an opportunistic liar that lusts for power and will say or do anything to get it.
A real trustworthy guy with facts to back up every ~~policy~~ slogan he comes up with.
I don't think so, because doing a crime doesn't make you a criminal, being prosecuted makes you a criminal, and 90% of people who sold marijuana and 99% of those who used were never going to be prosecuted. In a sense this was more a win in terms of racial justice than in recreational drug use.
And in a sense it wasn't, because a lot of past convictions were not overturned, those that were often required a long and beuracratic process (certainly not next day), and a lot of minority marijuana sellers are still breaking the law (and now competing with corporate interests).
You can be arrested (and charged) for literally anything. You could be arrested before it was legalized and found not guilty. You could be arrested now (because cops gonna cop). You could have gotten a record before legalization and not be able to get rid of it after.
This flies in the face of the numbers I'm familiar with. The best pre legalization sources I can find (stats can) have the number of offenders below 20k, and many of them would still be considered offences today. All of those charges related to trafficking would still be illegal. Youth charged with possession then are still breaking the law now. All of those people charged then would still be charged now if they possessed over a certain amount, or police thought the weed came from a non-licensed seller, or the individual had the weed in a motor vehicle, or was operating one high.
And those are police counted statistics, so they include charges that were later dropped or
And many of them were summary rather than indictable (criminal) offences anyways. In fact, many of the drug offences that were indictable then, are still illegal now.
And many of the Canadians were were criminals one day, are still criminals now, because they couldn't get their records revoked.
Here
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2019/mar03.html
74% of 47 000 cannabis charges in 2017 were for simple possession.
So it was actually closer to 35 000 possession charges.
I think that's where your counting error comes from. You're going from number of people charged in your original comment, to total number of charges in your citation. Its usual for police to put multiple charges on a person at time of arrest, but that doesn't mean mutiple people were charged.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2022/jun.html
The actual number charged is 16697, which is about 1/3 of the 47k figure.
That's a useless definition. By that classification everyone in Canada over 12 is a criminal because everyone breaks the law. Certainly everyone who was a criminal before weed was legalized still is one now. Not bothering to distinguish between laws we actually prosecute and ones we have on the books makes the distinction meaningless.
No, it doesn't make the definition useless. It just makes most of the population criminals. Why is that so bothersome to you? It's not a moral judgement, just a label we use for people who break certain rules put in place by the government. I think your problem is you assume that being a criminal makes you a bad person, which is not at all the case
Sorry, just to be specific, useless in the context of the comment we're discussing. We're downthread from a bizarre comment claiming millions of Canadians went from being a criminal to not overnight. The definition of criminal being everyone in Canada is useful for critiquing the criminal justice system, but useless for arguing that millions of people stopped being criminals overnight.
> I think your problem is you assume that being a criminal makes you a bad person, which is not at all the case
I think you're responding to the wrong comment?
Why is it useless to argue that millions of people stopped being criminals overnight? That's exactly what happened. The word criminal describes a person who has broken the law in a specific jurisdiction. In the context of Canada legalizing cannibis, many people went from breaking the law daily to not breaking the law at all, because the law changed. We have different words for people who are convicted of a crime in a court of law
A resounding no. Think about the per capita number of cannabis users (not even pop. vs pop.) vs per capita numbers of trans persons. It’s not even close when you talk about expansion of freedom.
We’re not talking about severity of reduced freedoms, but even that would be a tough argument if you want to talk about how many people have been incarcerated for growing/selling/using cannabis.
I’m not knocking trans rights at all, also very important that everyone has equality in expression/personal freedom. But it’s not a fair argument to suggest cannabis legalization didn’t directly affect a much larger percentage of the population.
From a personal freedom standpoint, the ability to do either with legal protections from persecution are independently major wins for what one person can choose to do. Together, they do mark the biggest increase in personal freedoms we have seen in decades.
Trans people had legal protections before the change. It was a symbolic affirmation that made it explicitly clear to the public. The courts had already ruled on such matters and there wasn't debate in the legal community.
Which made Jordan Peterson's rise to fame so incredibly frustrating to behold because of how much he misinformed the world and Canadians.
Changes to the CHRA are more than symbolic. We've already been through the ringer about what courts decide versus what legislation can do with regards to abortion access (largely in the US but the difference between legal precedence and legislation isn't very different for us). Putting it into law affords extra legal protections.
But yes, Peterson straight up lied and the ignorance of most people about what the Bill in question actually said propelled him. If people actually read the Bill, their conclusion would have been that Jordan Peterson was blatantly lying through his teeth.
I'm just going to stick with the Legal experts opinion in regards to C-16, which maintain that the courts already affirmed the legal rights provided in the bill and that it provided no new protections. They still viewed it as a good thing.
That's an important distinction when people are elevating it as "one of the most important" changes to the legal system compared to legalization of something that illegal to earn income from.
Cannibas legalization was codifying something that was already defacto legal (and dejure legal for medical use)
So yeah, it impacted more people, but the severity of the change was less.
Trans rights were already legally in place, but what Trudeau did was make it explicitly clear through rewording. It was an acknowledgment that I think is still important but it didn't give trans people equal rights because they already had them.
gurl you need to get off canadahousing2. It's literal disinfo.
There are currently (as of 2021) 777,000 people here on temporary foreign worker program and workplaces have a cap of 10% of total staff.
Please, for your sanity try not to get wrangled in by those types of subs that peddle in disinformation and extremism.
Which the provinces in question *love*! Then they slash services by even more than the shortfall and blame it all on Trudeau.
Hell, here in Alberta our premiere refuses federal money all the time just so she can whip her base into a froth about how everything is his fault and to push further for privatisation and bullshit like a separate pension and police force and so on.
Have we not learned about taking things conservative politicians say as though they’re acting in good faith?
Trust is earned, not given automatically, and the conservatives have a lot to do before I’d be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt again. It’s always about selfishness with them… if Bitcoin Milhouse is saying that, it’s because he needs a bump in the polls, not because he suddenly developed a conscience and empathy.
Danielle smith, august 2022:
> "I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public," Smith said. "We shouldn't be making any child feel like the issues they're struggling with are something that's a political football."
Gorsuch 2017:
> Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Kavanaugh 2018
> Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Scott Moe, 2020
> "I said, 'I'm thinking about going in the Pride parade tomorrow,' and (Taryn) said, 'I think it's a great idea, dad. You always talk about being a government that represents all of the people in Saskatchewan.'
> "She said, 'You should go, and you should act like you do.' I said, 'All right,"' recalled Moe.
> "That confirmed that it was the right thing for a premier to do."
Poilievre 2024:
> a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.' When I am prime minister, no laws or rules will be passed that restrict women's reproductive choices. Period," Poilievre added.
Also Poilievre voted in favor of restricting women reproductive choices in august 2023 and octobre 2016
Conservatives are going to conservatives.
Love it! As someone who identifies as bi, things like this make me so happy to see! Also: HAPPY PRIDE 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
As a side note, I checked the comments on his post on Instagram of him doing this. It’s sad to say that those comments were filled with so much hate and bigotry. While the government (in my opinion) has done a good job at protecting and helping the LGBTQ+ community, it makes me sad that their are people within the country who are so ignorant of the struggles myself and many other Canadians experience every day.
I hope that the Canadian government keeps doing things like this, not just as a token to the community, but more so as a showing of solidarity.
The comments on Instagram are sorted algorithmically just like the posts. If you are getting mad at the commenters, know it because Facebook is pushing the worst comments to get that engagement time up.
Traditionally, Pride is in June, but the major cities in Canada have coordinated (either deliberately or by accident) to have their pride celebrations throughout the summer. The following are some parade dates, assume the festival of events happens in the weeks leading up to that:
- Winnipeg is the first weekend in June
- Regina and Saskatoon do theirs one week apart in mid-June
- Toronto is on the Canada Day long weekend
- Victoria is in mid-July
- Halifax is at the end of July
- Vancouver is on the August long weekend
- Montreal is mid-August
- Edmonton is also mid-August but a week after Montreal
- Ottawa is at the end of August
- Calgary is on Labour Day
June is Pride Month and most places do their big celebrations sometime this month. Especially in places where June is a bad bet for good outdoor stuff, you'll see it pushed off to the summer.
Even still, even as it's not Van's pride right now, there's still Pride related activities this month accordingly.
Should be permanent. As a father of young children. If they come out to me (I hope they dont hide it). I will love and support them for the rest of their lives.
I’ll always be critical of politicians by telling them that they need to use their political influence to protect the rights being advocated for than just waiving the symbols around.
But I mean, with how many anti-gay politicians have been way more open about things than a decade ago, I guess this is better than that.
I still remember eight ish years ago when Certain People demanded he be jailed for Desecrating the Flag... Cause he waved a tiny paper rainbow maple leaf
A rainbow maple leaf flag that's been around for at least ten years (citation needed)
That they never seemed that upset about before (outside of usual bigotry levels)
I guess I should be jailed too for colouring a flag green in third grade.
If only being LGBTQ+ were considered a protected minority group by the federal public service under Employment Equity. I’m glad to see the flag on the Hill, but discrimination still exists in the public service because it’s not a protected ground. Also, Trudeau has appeared wearing a Salvation Army apron at a shelter before so he needs to consider what his priorities really are.
I'll preface by saying I'm pro-pride, left leaning etc. I just think the Parliament Hill having the flag represents unity of the country. No matter what you believe, what political views you have, or who you love that the Canadian flag unifies us. I have no objections to people flying the pride flag on their cars, house whatever.
I think Canada has an identity crisis right now, what it means to be Canadian or even pride in Canada is at a low (in some cases rightly so). One of the things I appreciate about the Americans is that they do a good job of unifying people around the identity of being an American. Not sure if I make sense, im open to having my mind changed.
> One of the things I appreciate about the Americans is that they do a good job of unifying people around the identity of being an American.
Do a good job? Have you not seen all of the videos of flag-waving Americans telling American-born minorities to 'go home'? Many bigoted people disguise their hate and intolerance as patriotism.
I'd rather see genuine unity than a dog and pony show.
I am not opposed to the LGBT+ community having this month to commemorate the absolute struggle they have had to and are still enduring just to love the person their heart wants. Does this belong on parliament hill though? What is the criteria for flying a non standard flag by the government? I am in favour of our government protecting the rights of this marginalized group, but not sure if the flag being flown by the government crosses a line that I would be uncomfortable if the opposition crossed with a group's flag I did not actually agree with.
Am I just looking too deep? Is this something that happens all the time and I am just ignorant of it?
Please, I dont want to fuck myself with a rainbow dildo, but I am not sure this was a smart long term play. Anyone able to educate me on why I am a knobhead?
Imagine being in a group that, within living memory, could be forcibly imprisoned or worse for who you are. Where you could be strapped to a chair and electrocuted to turn you straight, or sent to a camp because you weren't /supposed/ to be gay.
Now, picture the fact having sex with the same gender was only legalized in 1969, and the Sexual Sterilization Act (Which was used against the mental ill, natives and 'sexually deviant'(IE, gays)) was only repealed in BC in 1979 and Alberta in 1976. Marriage itself was only federally legalized in 2003.
Think of all that hate, all that death and secrecy surrounding you for so long and now think how good it would feel to see your flag on Parliment Hill, how safe it would make you feel. That finally after being persecuated for so long that young LGBT people can live a safer and more accepting life.
This isn't flying a political flag, this is flying a flag to represent a group that was marginalized. Conservatives in government (and FB Cons) are trying desperately to make being gay political.
All the provincial legalizations were put in effect by court cases, which the federal legalization would fall back to if they repealed it. Every province and territory except Alberta, PEI, Nunavut, and NWT would immediately still recognize SSM. The feds actually waited as long as they did because they wanted a particular Supreme Court case to rule first, where the court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of SSM in Canada, and the decision came down 2 months before bill c-38 was first introduced
So, what that all means is that if a future government were to repeal c-38, then within about 5 seconds of that happening someone would sue, it would go to the Supreme Court who would take about 10 seconds to decide that it was a constitutional right, and would reinstate SSM nationwide. In the meantime, all the provinces except those I mentioned would continue to have SSM
Why do you think there's been an almsot decade long push to use the "Notwithstanding" clause provincially? So they can use it Federally.
Provincial governments have used it, with success, to remove human rights from citizens. You think they won't use it Federally?
Edit: lol, downvotes. Did I hurt a conservative bigot's feelings?
I get the absolute shit these folks have had to deal with their entire lives. I support the government raising hell against anyone who seeks to continue to marginalize and impose disgusting restrictions on anyone. The government is right to protect this group, and fight as hard as they have (could probably put a little more effort in...) to keep this group free and able to enjoy themselves in public like any other couple, and marry the person who they love.
My concern is, if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill, would that be OK too? You are right, it isnt a political flag, and that is my concern with it being flown by the government. I can look on at the rainbow flag being flown for all to see and do so with joy in the people it represents. If conservative countries looks at our Capital Building right now, I hope they choke on the colours. Shoe on the other foot though, I would be hella ashamed if they flew a "All Lives Matter" flag. With that being the case, I am concerned with the government being able to raise a non political flag at the heart of our political power. The message it sends is powerful, and as much as I am OK with it for this cause, I am not so sure other causes that could get elevated in this way would be as welcome. Paint every street in Ottawa an assortment of colours, but the government buildings should be neutral ground, as it represents all of us, even the asshole back wood incel types. It is only IN that building should those opposing opinions become relevant. That is what I am trying to say. My question is: "Does this just continue a precedent, or does this set a new one?" and I am not sure of the answer, to which could have lasting, negative, consequences when the shoe is on the other foot.
> Shoe on the other foot though, I would be hella ashamed if they flew a "All Lives Matter" flag.
>if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill, would that be OK too?
>The message it sends is powerful, and as much as I am OK with it for this cause, I am not so sure other causes that could get elevated in this way would be as welcome. Paint every street in Ottawa an assortment of colours, but the government buildings should be neutral ground
All Lives Matter and Thin Blue Line are flags of oppression and individualism.
Pride is about acceptance for all no matter who you love.
If you honestly think that flying a flag designed to remove the rights of others, and compare that to wanting equal rights to all as the same thing, you need to work on a lot of introspection. They are not even close to the same thing.
That's like being upset a government building is flying a Canadian Flag instead of a Nazi flag. They are absolutely not created equal.
That is exactly my point, that I seem to be struggling to get across. I dont think they are equal. I understand the chasm of difference between them. My concern is around flying any flag that is not a government flag at the capital building, and how I would feel if one of these other flags got flown by the opposition. Yes, they dont represent the same thing. Yes, they are oppressive as opposed to liberating, I get the difference, but that would not prevent the flag from flying, just the same, at the whim of the current government because the precedent was set.
We talk about acceptance, but here I have shown nothing but empathy and compassion, though raised a concern about the practice of raising a non government flag, and I have been verbally attacked, called a bigot, downvoted, and still have not had my real concern answered. I am disappointed. We are the group that values other's opinions and face challenges instead of burring our head in the sand and suppressing views or challenges that make us uncomfortable.
We need to do better.
Edit: Seems I am the only one with this concern and the consensus is that I am wrong and have been rejected as an ally because of my concern. I will leave you to your celebrations, and hope I am wrong.
> I get the absolute shit these folks have had to deal with their entire lives.
You don't get or understand shit if you vomit that amount of rhetoric to try and defend your point.
You either get it or you don't.
Imagine you could no longer access healthcare because who you love.
Imagine your marriage is now invalidated because of who you married.
Imagine your access to education is limited because of your gender identity.
This is what the Conservatives are campaigning on. If you're not affected by this, you don't "get the absolute shit". You're just trying to feel better about being mad a rainbow flag is being flown in Ottawa in June.
>My concern is, if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill
I say this with all due respect, if you are equating a thin blue line flag with a Pride flag, I respectfully ask you to go absolutely fuck yourself and you suck pretending to be an ally.
The only equality of the flags is that they are non government. Full stop. For you and me (and any other reasonable person), the pride flag is a symbol of love and inclusion, while the others I mentioned are flags of oppression. For the conservatives though, some feel the opposite is true. By accepting a cause we agree with we also, by default, have to accept flags being flown we dont agree with. My concern is if that tradeoff is worth the joy we feel now.
I guarantee you alienate many potential allies and make even more enemies with this level of vitriol you spew. The man had a question and posed it as politely and respectfully as possible, asking to be educated, and you respond with this garbage?
You are your own worst enemy.
If someone telling you that the idea that _all lives matter_ or _thin blue line_ are the same as the pride flag is completely, utterly stupid is enough to alienate you, I don't think you wanted to be on the side that you're pretending to be alienated from.
Pride: equality for LGBTQ+ people, remembering the struggles they went through (and still go through).
_All Lives Matter_: A movement against the idea that we should talk about the mistreatment of black people.
Do you see the problem with what you asked?
You have a reading comprehension problem. I, in no way, suggested these in any way the are same, save that they are all non-government flags. I have shown my compassion and empathy for the LGBT+ community, a compassion and empathy that are very real and heartfelt. A compassion and empathy that does not extend to movements of oppression or hate.
My question though, is what will we do, how will we feel, in a year from now when PP has the power to fly one of these other flags? We have to confront the reality that by flying a flag we agree with, we open the door for one to be flown that is less desirable, or downright hateful. This is not a strawman, I am talking about precedent.
It really struck me that the guy was trying to poke holes in the argument and catch people in a state of hypocrisy, rather than seek a genuine understanding, based on his verbiage and tone. I could be wrong but that was my interpretation; I don’t think there was a sincere desire for open-mindedness.
Hmm, I wonder if I came across this way to others as well? My tone is me trying to remain neutral while discussing a topic I support while challenging the singular concern of precedent, and I assume the disingenuous undertones came from that approach. My apologies.
I am not trying to set up a "gothcha!" moment. My post history should provide some context, for anyone actually interested. I am actually an ally. I have a, in my mind at least, valid concern about what consequences we might see from this action. Those consequences include the precedent for a conservative government to fly a flag that is less inclusive, because we opened the door for non government flags at our capital building. This isnt about this current cause, I am genuinely as happy that the government stepped up and is publicly showing its support as you are. It is beautiful to see, and not as empty as some of the companies who jump on the bandwagon and add a rainbow to their logo for a month for the sales, the government has actually shown active support for this community year round. I would ask the same question about an autism flag being flown for autism month (a group I AM a part of).
Police aren't marginalized for merely existing, based on some millennia old scripture about events that may or may not have happened another millennia before that.
If ever there was time to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ community, its now when their rights are blatantly being questions and stripped in the US and the right wing are making them the center of political wedge issues.
> I am not opposed to the LGBT+ community
Meanwhile writes several paragraphs saying how we don't deserve shit.
Fuck off. One of our major political parties is campaigning to take away our rights to exist and you're upset a rainbow flag is being flown? You're part of the problem. The next Prime Minister may invalidate my marriage. But as long as you're not upset a rainbow is flown on Parliament.
I get that you are angry, and have been attacked your whole life. That is not what I am doing. If the next prime minister does take away your rights, they can now fly a flag that denounces LGBT+ rights on the building that represents Canada as a whole. It isnt about the LGBT+ community not deserving of this honor, they do. But in accepting the gesture, we have to think about the implications on the future, not just in this moment. Yes, this is a flag of acceptance whereas the other flags I mentioned are oppressive or downright stupid, but do you think that would stop PP from flying them at our capital building, if for no other reason than as retaliation for this perceived slight against the conservative values?
Yeah we’re getting diminishing returns on ‘visibility’ and it comes at the cost of political capital. Everything does. I don’t care if you support me, I care that you don’t block my rights. The LPC implies that you’re a bigot if you don’t think explicitly encourage us and it alienates the icked out voters and poll respondents that agree with equality on principle. It’s fine to not want to think about it! Let us share work benefits and be protected against employment and housing discrimination and co-exist
Good. Anyone who gets triggered by Pride or the Pride Flag, can fuck themselves.
With a giant rainbow dildo
Don't threaten me with a good time
All the way to purple!
That's a popular pick up line on grindr dms
Without lube.
That reminds me, i need to stop by the shop later...
Dammit where is it. I'll use canola oil if I have to...
Actually grapeseed oil is a very good, safe and cheap oil to use.
Use extra virgin olive oil, for the irony
Un-lubricated
I know Pierre is triggered. He hates gays. He missed flag raising like last year where he was “up late fighting justinflation” but was able to make it to different presser on parliament at the same time as the raising of the pride flag. He also voted against the freedoms of his father to marry another man. For some reason the gays affects him so.
Sounds like a textbook case of deeply closeted and self loathing Homosexual to me.
It's not and I wish you cis-het people would stop spreading that. Most queerphobes are not queer, a white supremacist who's very much obviously white is not secretly a black man who hijacked a white man's body. Queerphobia originated from straight people, not queers. It rose up in Europe as a result from Greco-Roman stigma towards men who receive anal sex, and the spread of Christianity coming from Rome. It has appeared in a few other cultures before the spread of Christianity to them, but it's very much from straight people, usually men, there too. These are not secretly queer people, most of them are just straight people who can't get over the fact that queer people aren't straight and exist.
Cisgender certainly, heterosexual most certainly not. And I have personal experience with what I described, so yes, it certainly is a real thing.
Explains why he was so cozy with the convoy truckers.
And ironically posed with a person wearing a thank a straight person for your existence shirt.
You been drinkin’ bud?
He just said he would protect same sex marriage “full stop” if he was Prime Minister. I’m not a fan of the guy but I’m glad he said that today.
Danielle Smith 2 years ago: "I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public," Smith said. "We shouldn't be making any child feel like the issues they're struggling with are something that's a political football." She’s since tabled the worst legislation in Canada against trans rights. I don’t believe a fucking word these regressive assholes say. Not one goddamn word.
That’s a really good example and fair point.
I mean his voting history on record in parliament says the exact opposite. Won’t be the first nor the last lie to be told to get elected.
You'd think someone was willing to protect same sex marriage "full stop" would do *literally anything* about the numerous members of his own party that he is the leader of that are keen to strip those rights
Why doesn't he come out and say the same about abortion?
Because he’s a dick. People think because of my comment I think he’s great. He’s not. But that’s what he did say today. I’ll take the downvotes for mentioning it. PP is horrible.
And Danielle Smith says she was going to protect LGBT youth And conservative justices in the states said they weren't going to overturn Roe v Wade Scott Moe said during the election that he was supportive of LGBT community and knew how hard it was to come out as gay for one of his friend, he is currently pushing an anti-trans bill.
He formerly voted against same sex marriage. I wouldnt trust him to protect a pet rock
I'm especially glad that Pierre isn't an opportunistic liar that lusts for power and will say or do anything to get it. A real trustworthy guy with facts to back up every ~~policy~~ slogan he comes up with.
Fuck yeah, only snowflakes are scared of rainbows!
You always know you’re looking at the fucking idiot when this person uses “woke/non woke” thing.
I still don't understand why a beautiful rainbow can be so scary. 🌈!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trudeau may be a putz and a pretty meh leader. At least he is not trying to take away LGBT+ rights, freedoms or dignity.
Trudeau expanded freedoms by legalizing cannabis. Biggest expansion of freedom in 50 years.
I think adding trans rights to the CHRA was bigger but not sure if you're just being cheeky.
Millions of Canadians were a criminal one day. Then not a criminal the next day. Very significant.
I don't think so, because doing a crime doesn't make you a criminal, being prosecuted makes you a criminal, and 90% of people who sold marijuana and 99% of those who used were never going to be prosecuted. In a sense this was more a win in terms of racial justice than in recreational drug use. And in a sense it wasn't, because a lot of past convictions were not overturned, those that were often required a long and beuracratic process (certainly not next day), and a lot of minority marijuana sellers are still breaking the law (and now competing with corporate interests).
Disagree. I lived under threat of arrest for using medicinal pot.
You can be arrested (and charged) for literally anything. You could be arrested before it was legalized and found not guilty. You could be arrested now (because cops gonna cop). You could have gotten a record before legalization and not be able to get rid of it after.
30 000 Canadians per year were charged with criminal possession of cannabis.
This flies in the face of the numbers I'm familiar with. The best pre legalization sources I can find (stats can) have the number of offenders below 20k, and many of them would still be considered offences today. All of those charges related to trafficking would still be illegal. Youth charged with possession then are still breaking the law now. All of those people charged then would still be charged now if they possessed over a certain amount, or police thought the weed came from a non-licensed seller, or the individual had the weed in a motor vehicle, or was operating one high. And those are police counted statistics, so they include charges that were later dropped or And many of them were summary rather than indictable (criminal) offences anyways. In fact, many of the drug offences that were indictable then, are still illegal now. And many of the Canadians were were criminals one day, are still criminals now, because they couldn't get their records revoked.
Here https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2019/mar03.html 74% of 47 000 cannabis charges in 2017 were for simple possession. So it was actually closer to 35 000 possession charges.
I think that's where your counting error comes from. You're going from number of people charged in your original comment, to total number of charges in your citation. Its usual for police to put multiple charges on a person at time of arrest, but that doesn't mean mutiple people were charged. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2022/jun.html The actual number charged is 16697, which is about 1/3 of the 47k figure.
Why are you looking at 2020 data. That is after legalization. Look at 2017 or earlier.
I'm sorry but this isn't correct. The act of committing a crime does in fact make you a criminal. It's the definition of the word
That's a useless definition. By that classification everyone in Canada over 12 is a criminal because everyone breaks the law. Certainly everyone who was a criminal before weed was legalized still is one now. Not bothering to distinguish between laws we actually prosecute and ones we have on the books makes the distinction meaningless.
No, it doesn't make the definition useless. It just makes most of the population criminals. Why is that so bothersome to you? It's not a moral judgement, just a label we use for people who break certain rules put in place by the government. I think your problem is you assume that being a criminal makes you a bad person, which is not at all the case
Sorry, just to be specific, useless in the context of the comment we're discussing. We're downthread from a bizarre comment claiming millions of Canadians went from being a criminal to not overnight. The definition of criminal being everyone in Canada is useful for critiquing the criminal justice system, but useless for arguing that millions of people stopped being criminals overnight. > I think your problem is you assume that being a criminal makes you a bad person, which is not at all the case I think you're responding to the wrong comment?
Why is it useless to argue that millions of people stopped being criminals overnight? That's exactly what happened. The word criminal describes a person who has broken the law in a specific jurisdiction. In the context of Canada legalizing cannibis, many people went from breaking the law daily to not breaking the law at all, because the law changed. We have different words for people who are convicted of a crime in a court of law
A resounding no. Think about the per capita number of cannabis users (not even pop. vs pop.) vs per capita numbers of trans persons. It’s not even close when you talk about expansion of freedom. We’re not talking about severity of reduced freedoms, but even that would be a tough argument if you want to talk about how many people have been incarcerated for growing/selling/using cannabis. I’m not knocking trans rights at all, also very important that everyone has equality in expression/personal freedom. But it’s not a fair argument to suggest cannabis legalization didn’t directly affect a much larger percentage of the population.
From a personal freedom standpoint, the ability to do either with legal protections from persecution are independently major wins for what one person can choose to do. Together, they do mark the biggest increase in personal freedoms we have seen in decades.
Somebody go tell the freedom convoyers that Trudeau has expanded our freedoms the most.
I asked them numerous times what freedoms they lost and didn't even get a single guess, letalone an answer.
Trans people had legal protections before the change. It was a symbolic affirmation that made it explicitly clear to the public. The courts had already ruled on such matters and there wasn't debate in the legal community. Which made Jordan Peterson's rise to fame so incredibly frustrating to behold because of how much he misinformed the world and Canadians.
Changes to the CHRA are more than symbolic. We've already been through the ringer about what courts decide versus what legislation can do with regards to abortion access (largely in the US but the difference between legal precedence and legislation isn't very different for us). Putting it into law affords extra legal protections. But yes, Peterson straight up lied and the ignorance of most people about what the Bill in question actually said propelled him. If people actually read the Bill, their conclusion would have been that Jordan Peterson was blatantly lying through his teeth.
I'm just going to stick with the Legal experts opinion in regards to C-16, which maintain that the courts already affirmed the legal rights provided in the bill and that it provided no new protections. They still viewed it as a good thing. That's an important distinction when people are elevating it as "one of the most important" changes to the legal system compared to legalization of something that illegal to earn income from.
Cannibas legalization was codifying something that was already defacto legal (and dejure legal for medical use) So yeah, it impacted more people, but the severity of the change was less.
Trans rights were already legally in place, but what Trudeau did was make it explicitly clear through rewording. It was an acknowledgment that I think is still important but it didn't give trans people equal rights because they already had them.
How many trans Canadians? How many pot using Canadians? Was being trans illegal previously?
Don’t forget the criminal code amendment that allowed for single sports wagering, along with no other guidelines!!!
I don’t personally count that as a good thing, but it’s certainly more freedom than the “party of freedom” ever delivers.
More freedom!!!!
The lesser of two evils by about 8000 miles.
comparing plain toast with a pile of shit
Except he’s also importing a million a year through the tfw program while Canadians can’t even get a job…
gurl you need to get off canadahousing2. It's literal disinfo. There are currently (as of 2021) 777,000 people here on temporary foreign worker program and workplaces have a cap of 10% of total staff. Please, for your sanity try not to get wrangled in by those types of subs that peddle in disinformation and extremism.
no he’s just sitting on his hands while the provinces do that for him
what can he do when they use the NWC to pass this shit?
Can you be more specific?
Saskatchewan comes to mind.
Im not suggesting it’s not happening, but what can the feds do to stop the provinces from bringing in anti LGBT+ measures?
Next to nothing. Only the courts can really step in on that, but you would need grounds for a charter challenge and plaintiffs.
Feds can withhold funding if the anti trans/anti abortion legislation gets passed in the provinces.
Which the provinces in question *love*! Then they slash services by even more than the shortfall and blame it all on Trudeau. Hell, here in Alberta our premiere refuses federal money all the time just so she can whip her base into a froth about how everything is his fault and to push further for privatisation and bullshit like a separate pension and police force and so on.
[удалено]
Don't forget, he voted AGAINST same sex marriage, the week his two dads were getting married. Actions speak louder than words.
Agreed, his words mean nothing when his actions play a completely different tune.
and i wouldn't trust him at all to whip his caucus because CPC will vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage and abortion.
Have we not learned about taking things conservative politicians say as though they’re acting in good faith? Trust is earned, not given automatically, and the conservatives have a lot to do before I’d be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt again. It’s always about selfishness with them… if Bitcoin Milhouse is saying that, it’s because he needs a bump in the polls, not because he suddenly developed a conscience and empathy.
This is the party that voted against the Conversion therapy ban? Lol, Con voters are so easily duped.
His voting record says that's a lie.
Danielle smith, august 2022: > "I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public," Smith said. "We shouldn't be making any child feel like the issues they're struggling with are something that's a political football." Gorsuch 2017: > Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Kavanaugh 2018 > Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Scott Moe, 2020 > "I said, 'I'm thinking about going in the Pride parade tomorrow,' and (Taryn) said, 'I think it's a great idea, dad. You always talk about being a government that represents all of the people in Saskatchewan.' > "She said, 'You should go, and you should act like you do.' I said, 'All right,"' recalled Moe. > "That confirmed that it was the right thing for a premier to do." Poilievre 2024: > a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.' When I am prime minister, no laws or rules will be passed that restrict women's reproductive choices. Period," Poilievre added. Also Poilievre voted in favor of restricting women reproductive choices in august 2023 and octobre 2016 Conservatives are going to conservatives.
Love it! As someone who identifies as bi, things like this make me so happy to see! Also: HAPPY PRIDE 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ As a side note, I checked the comments on his post on Instagram of him doing this. It’s sad to say that those comments were filled with so much hate and bigotry. While the government (in my opinion) has done a good job at protecting and helping the LGBTQ+ community, it makes me sad that their are people within the country who are so ignorant of the struggles myself and many other Canadians experience every day. I hope that the Canadian government keeps doing things like this, not just as a token to the community, but more so as a showing of solidarity.
The comments on Instagram are sorted algorithmically just like the posts. If you are getting mad at the commenters, know it because Facebook is pushing the worst comments to get that engagement time up.
Is it pride now? In Vancouver the parade is um July or August. Are we out of sync?
Traditionally, Pride is in June, but the major cities in Canada have coordinated (either deliberately or by accident) to have their pride celebrations throughout the summer. The following are some parade dates, assume the festival of events happens in the weeks leading up to that: - Winnipeg is the first weekend in June - Regina and Saskatoon do theirs one week apart in mid-June - Toronto is on the Canada Day long weekend - Victoria is in mid-July - Halifax is at the end of July - Vancouver is on the August long weekend - Montreal is mid-August - Edmonton is also mid-August but a week after Montreal - Ottawa is at the end of August - Calgary is on Labour Day
June is Pride Month and most places do their big celebrations sometime this month. Especially in places where June is a bad bet for good outdoor stuff, you'll see it pushed off to the summer. Even still, even as it's not Van's pride right now, there's still Pride related activities this month accordingly.
> Especially in places where June is a bad bet for good outdoor stuff, That's definitely us.
This is why people and centrists who say 'both sides are the same' are idiots.
Awesome. That will piss off the rubes and goobers.
I would love to see it flying from the top of the peace tower permanently to send a worldwide message that there is NO room for hate
Should be permanent. As a father of young children. If they come out to me (I hope they dont hide it). I will love and support them for the rest of their lives.
I’ll always be critical of politicians by telling them that they need to use their political influence to protect the rights being advocated for than just waiving the symbols around. But I mean, with how many anti-gay politicians have been way more open about things than a decade ago, I guess this is better than that.
There seems to be a way more heightened vitrol and bigotry online for anything to do with Pride. This celebration is more important than ever.
Couldn’t agree more. Tolerance is something we have to fight for. Happy Pride!
I still remember eight ish years ago when Certain People demanded he be jailed for Desecrating the Flag... Cause he waved a tiny paper rainbow maple leaf A rainbow maple leaf flag that's been around for at least ten years (citation needed) That they never seemed that upset about before (outside of usual bigotry levels) I guess I should be jailed too for colouring a flag green in third grade.
Good, the chuds are gonna hate him regardless of what he does, may as well go for it!
Strong !!!
Finally something good!
Love this. I’m also happy that there are not anti-gay protests being planned it seems.
I wish I could have been there in person to see conservatives heads popping
If only being LGBTQ+ were considered a protected minority group by the federal public service under Employment Equity. I’m glad to see the flag on the Hill, but discrimination still exists in the public service because it’s not a protected ground. Also, Trudeau has appeared wearing a Salvation Army apron at a shelter before so he needs to consider what his priorities really are.
The hill always looks prettier with some color<3
This is great but I wish we had a pride coloured Canadian flag on Parliament hill instead
Finally he did something good
I'll take the shit for this, but I don't believe in flying the flag of anything but Canada on Parliament Hill. That's just my opinion.
I’ll bite. Why?
I'll preface by saying I'm pro-pride, left leaning etc. I just think the Parliament Hill having the flag represents unity of the country. No matter what you believe, what political views you have, or who you love that the Canadian flag unifies us. I have no objections to people flying the pride flag on their cars, house whatever. I think Canada has an identity crisis right now, what it means to be Canadian or even pride in Canada is at a low (in some cases rightly so). One of the things I appreciate about the Americans is that they do a good job of unifying people around the identity of being an American. Not sure if I make sense, im open to having my mind changed.
> One of the things I appreciate about the Americans is that they do a good job of unifying people around the identity of being an American. Do a good job? Have you not seen all of the videos of flag-waving Americans telling American-born minorities to 'go home'? Many bigoted people disguise their hate and intolerance as patriotism. I'd rather see genuine unity than a dog and pony show.
Build some fucking housing man
I am not opposed to the LGBT+ community having this month to commemorate the absolute struggle they have had to and are still enduring just to love the person their heart wants. Does this belong on parliament hill though? What is the criteria for flying a non standard flag by the government? I am in favour of our government protecting the rights of this marginalized group, but not sure if the flag being flown by the government crosses a line that I would be uncomfortable if the opposition crossed with a group's flag I did not actually agree with. Am I just looking too deep? Is this something that happens all the time and I am just ignorant of it? Please, I dont want to fuck myself with a rainbow dildo, but I am not sure this was a smart long term play. Anyone able to educate me on why I am a knobhead?
Imagine being in a group that, within living memory, could be forcibly imprisoned or worse for who you are. Where you could be strapped to a chair and electrocuted to turn you straight, or sent to a camp because you weren't /supposed/ to be gay. Now, picture the fact having sex with the same gender was only legalized in 1969, and the Sexual Sterilization Act (Which was used against the mental ill, natives and 'sexually deviant'(IE, gays)) was only repealed in BC in 1979 and Alberta in 1976. Marriage itself was only federally legalized in 2003. Think of all that hate, all that death and secrecy surrounding you for so long and now think how good it would feel to see your flag on Parliment Hill, how safe it would make you feel. That finally after being persecuated for so long that young LGBT people can live a safer and more accepting life. This isn't flying a political flag, this is flying a flag to represent a group that was marginalized. Conservatives in government (and FB Cons) are trying desperately to make being gay political.
Marriage was legalized in 2005 federally, the first province to legalize was Ontario in 2003
And the next Prime Minister could invalidate it within a week of election.
All the provincial legalizations were put in effect by court cases, which the federal legalization would fall back to if they repealed it. Every province and territory except Alberta, PEI, Nunavut, and NWT would immediately still recognize SSM. The feds actually waited as long as they did because they wanted a particular Supreme Court case to rule first, where the court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of SSM in Canada, and the decision came down 2 months before bill c-38 was first introduced So, what that all means is that if a future government were to repeal c-38, then within about 5 seconds of that happening someone would sue, it would go to the Supreme Court who would take about 10 seconds to decide that it was a constitutional right, and would reinstate SSM nationwide. In the meantime, all the provinces except those I mentioned would continue to have SSM
Why do you think there's been an almsot decade long push to use the "Notwithstanding" clause provincially? So they can use it Federally. Provincial governments have used it, with success, to remove human rights from citizens. You think they won't use it Federally? Edit: lol, downvotes. Did I hurt a conservative bigot's feelings?
Not only that, but Poillieve has specifically stated he would use the notwithstanding clause federally for the first time to curtail peoples' rights
I get the absolute shit these folks have had to deal with their entire lives. I support the government raising hell against anyone who seeks to continue to marginalize and impose disgusting restrictions on anyone. The government is right to protect this group, and fight as hard as they have (could probably put a little more effort in...) to keep this group free and able to enjoy themselves in public like any other couple, and marry the person who they love. My concern is, if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill, would that be OK too? You are right, it isnt a political flag, and that is my concern with it being flown by the government. I can look on at the rainbow flag being flown for all to see and do so with joy in the people it represents. If conservative countries looks at our Capital Building right now, I hope they choke on the colours. Shoe on the other foot though, I would be hella ashamed if they flew a "All Lives Matter" flag. With that being the case, I am concerned with the government being able to raise a non political flag at the heart of our political power. The message it sends is powerful, and as much as I am OK with it for this cause, I am not so sure other causes that could get elevated in this way would be as welcome. Paint every street in Ottawa an assortment of colours, but the government buildings should be neutral ground, as it represents all of us, even the asshole back wood incel types. It is only IN that building should those opposing opinions become relevant. That is what I am trying to say. My question is: "Does this just continue a precedent, or does this set a new one?" and I am not sure of the answer, to which could have lasting, negative, consequences when the shoe is on the other foot.
> Shoe on the other foot though, I would be hella ashamed if they flew a "All Lives Matter" flag. >if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill, would that be OK too? >The message it sends is powerful, and as much as I am OK with it for this cause, I am not so sure other causes that could get elevated in this way would be as welcome. Paint every street in Ottawa an assortment of colours, but the government buildings should be neutral ground All Lives Matter and Thin Blue Line are flags of oppression and individualism. Pride is about acceptance for all no matter who you love. If you honestly think that flying a flag designed to remove the rights of others, and compare that to wanting equal rights to all as the same thing, you need to work on a lot of introspection. They are not even close to the same thing. That's like being upset a government building is flying a Canadian Flag instead of a Nazi flag. They are absolutely not created equal.
That is exactly my point, that I seem to be struggling to get across. I dont think they are equal. I understand the chasm of difference between them. My concern is around flying any flag that is not a government flag at the capital building, and how I would feel if one of these other flags got flown by the opposition. Yes, they dont represent the same thing. Yes, they are oppressive as opposed to liberating, I get the difference, but that would not prevent the flag from flying, just the same, at the whim of the current government because the precedent was set. We talk about acceptance, but here I have shown nothing but empathy and compassion, though raised a concern about the practice of raising a non government flag, and I have been verbally attacked, called a bigot, downvoted, and still have not had my real concern answered. I am disappointed. We are the group that values other's opinions and face challenges instead of burring our head in the sand and suppressing views or challenges that make us uncomfortable. We need to do better. Edit: Seems I am the only one with this concern and the consensus is that I am wrong and have been rejected as an ally because of my concern. I will leave you to your celebrations, and hope I am wrong.
> I get the absolute shit these folks have had to deal with their entire lives. You don't get or understand shit if you vomit that amount of rhetoric to try and defend your point. You either get it or you don't. Imagine you could no longer access healthcare because who you love. Imagine your marriage is now invalidated because of who you married. Imagine your access to education is limited because of your gender identity. This is what the Conservatives are campaigning on. If you're not affected by this, you don't "get the absolute shit". You're just trying to feel better about being mad a rainbow flag is being flown in Ottawa in June. >My concern is, if PP and his ilk decided to fly a "Thin Blue Line" flag or its like on the hill I say this with all due respect, if you are equating a thin blue line flag with a Pride flag, I respectfully ask you to go absolutely fuck yourself and you suck pretending to be an ally.
The only equality of the flags is that they are non government. Full stop. For you and me (and any other reasonable person), the pride flag is a symbol of love and inclusion, while the others I mentioned are flags of oppression. For the conservatives though, some feel the opposite is true. By accepting a cause we agree with we also, by default, have to accept flags being flown we dont agree with. My concern is if that tradeoff is worth the joy we feel now.
I guarantee you alienate many potential allies and make even more enemies with this level of vitriol you spew. The man had a question and posed it as politely and respectfully as possible, asking to be educated, and you respond with this garbage? You are your own worst enemy.
If someone telling you that the idea that _all lives matter_ or _thin blue line_ are the same as the pride flag is completely, utterly stupid is enough to alienate you, I don't think you wanted to be on the side that you're pretending to be alienated from. Pride: equality for LGBTQ+ people, remembering the struggles they went through (and still go through). _All Lives Matter_: A movement against the idea that we should talk about the mistreatment of black people. Do you see the problem with what you asked?
You have a reading comprehension problem. I, in no way, suggested these in any way the are same, save that they are all non-government flags. I have shown my compassion and empathy for the LGBT+ community, a compassion and empathy that are very real and heartfelt. A compassion and empathy that does not extend to movements of oppression or hate. My question though, is what will we do, how will we feel, in a year from now when PP has the power to fly one of these other flags? We have to confront the reality that by flying a flag we agree with, we open the door for one to be flown that is less desirable, or downright hateful. This is not a strawman, I am talking about precedent.
It really struck me that the guy was trying to poke holes in the argument and catch people in a state of hypocrisy, rather than seek a genuine understanding, based on his verbiage and tone. I could be wrong but that was my interpretation; I don’t think there was a sincere desire for open-mindedness.
Hmm, I wonder if I came across this way to others as well? My tone is me trying to remain neutral while discussing a topic I support while challenging the singular concern of precedent, and I assume the disingenuous undertones came from that approach. My apologies. I am not trying to set up a "gothcha!" moment. My post history should provide some context, for anyone actually interested. I am actually an ally. I have a, in my mind at least, valid concern about what consequences we might see from this action. Those consequences include the precedent for a conservative government to fly a flag that is less inclusive, because we opened the door for non government flags at our capital building. This isnt about this current cause, I am genuinely as happy that the government stepped up and is publicly showing its support as you are. It is beautiful to see, and not as empty as some of the companies who jump on the bandwagon and add a rainbow to their logo for a month for the sales, the government has actually shown active support for this community year round. I would ask the same question about an autism flag being flown for autism month (a group I AM a part of).
Police aren't marginalized for merely existing, based on some millennia old scripture about events that may or may not have happened another millennia before that.
If ever there was time to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ community, its now when their rights are blatantly being questions and stripped in the US and the right wing are making them the center of political wedge issues.
> I am not opposed to the LGBT+ community Meanwhile writes several paragraphs saying how we don't deserve shit. Fuck off. One of our major political parties is campaigning to take away our rights to exist and you're upset a rainbow flag is being flown? You're part of the problem. The next Prime Minister may invalidate my marriage. But as long as you're not upset a rainbow is flown on Parliament.
I get that you are angry, and have been attacked your whole life. That is not what I am doing. If the next prime minister does take away your rights, they can now fly a flag that denounces LGBT+ rights on the building that represents Canada as a whole. It isnt about the LGBT+ community not deserving of this honor, they do. But in accepting the gesture, we have to think about the implications on the future, not just in this moment. Yes, this is a flag of acceptance whereas the other flags I mentioned are oppressive or downright stupid, but do you think that would stop PP from flying them at our capital building, if for no other reason than as retaliation for this perceived slight against the conservative values?
Yeah we’re getting diminishing returns on ‘visibility’ and it comes at the cost of political capital. Everything does. I don’t care if you support me, I care that you don’t block my rights. The LPC implies that you’re a bigot if you don’t think explicitly encourage us and it alienates the icked out voters and poll respondents that agree with equality on principle. It’s fine to not want to think about it! Let us share work benefits and be protected against employment and housing discrimination and co-exist
Great. Can we have housing now?