Sensitivity for the confused, but not the faithful
In Canada, it is not so important to be sensitive to the needs of those who live on the edges of what the majority of people call normal or average. It is more important to be sensitive to the needs of specific groups of these people. People living on the borders of gender identity get special treatment, but those who religious beliefs require some flexibility are out of luck.
Canada is an accommodating country...for some people.
If you like to wear a costume to confuse people about your gender, then no problem -- we'll make sure there is a toilet just for you:
Student groups at the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg, and Toronto's Ryerson University are lobbying for alternatives to conventional male and female washrooms to protect the safety and privacy of transgendered students.
The campaign comes despite student bodies and university authorities being unable to give any figures for how many transgendered students they need to accommodate.
"I think it's important for a couple of reasons. There are individuals on campus who don't feel safe going into either the male or female washrooms, that whatever bathroom they go into they feel ostracized," said Vivian Belik, VP of student services for the University of Winnipeg Students' Association.
"Gender-neutral washrooms are important because it deconstructs the idea of gender as a whole."
The washrooms are designed to meet the needs of people transitioning from one sex to the other, transvestites, transsexuals, and all others whose identities don't fit into conventional sexual norms.
On the other hand, if your identity, and related garb, is linked to religion, then you can forget about any special accommodation when exercising your right to vote:
If he is elected premier, Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair says he will amend Quebec's electoral law to make it impossible for veil-wearing Muslim women to vote without showing their faces to identify themselves.
In the latest controversy over accommodating religious minorities, Quebec electoral workers have been told that Muslim women wearing a niqab face veil will not be required to show their faces when they vote on Monday.
Under Quebec's rules, a voter has to present a photo ID before getting a ballot.
Marcel Blanchet, the province's chief electoral officer, says the exemption for niqab-wearing Muslim women is not a religious accommodation but simply falls under a general rule that says that people who show up without papers can either make a sworn statement or have another person vouch for their identity.
Mr. Boisclair said that is not acceptable.
Since the fall, Quebec has been embroiled in a bitter debate over accommodating religious minorities, especially devout Muslims and Hassidic Jews.
OK, what if you are a transvestite Muslim under your burka? How do we treat your transvestite identity in a sensitive manner while at the same time making sure you don't get the mistaken message that your religious beliefs are being treated with similar sensitivity?
And if a transvestite comes to vote in his women's clothing, complete with wig, does the electoral worker force him to drop the accessories and makeup in order to look like the person in the driver's license photo, if it was taken in the "male" mode?
Tricky questions. Perhaps Andre Boisclair, declared homosexual and so a person familiar with sexual identity controversies, can answer them for us.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Quebec election Andre Boisclair Muslim burka transvestite transgender washrooms unisex Marcel Blanchet niqab Parti Quebecois Hassidic University of Manitoba University of Winnipeg Ryerson University Vivian Belik
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Not sure I understand the point of this one, Steve. Are you saying that if we want to insist religiously-based traditions can't be allowed to prevent validating legal voter ID if necessary, we can't build bathrooms for people who want something other than option A or B?
Or are you saying that if we allow people with gender identity disorders a private space for personal hygiene functions, we have to allow exceptions to fundamental voting laws for religious customs that can easily be exploited to conceal identity?
Inconsistency is worth pointing out, but it helps to have some idea of how it should be corrected, as well.
Moreover, I'm not so sure that this necessarily *is* an "inconsistency". Being sensitive to the needs of GID people may only cost a few extra bathrooms; being "sensitive" to a religious custom that can be (and has been) all too easily exploited to conceal identity may cost us the ability to validate the votes that create our governments. I don't see that it's "inconsistent" to say, "The former price is acceptable; the latter is not."
Posted by: Stephen J. at March 23, 2007 11:28 AM
Sexual preference isn't just a personal choice, it's been elevated to a job qualification.
When simply "being gay" isn't enough... you can pad your resume with a sexual sheepskin from the University of Toronto.
"I'm thinkin'... you might not wanna have your parents visit on 'Sado-Masochism day'."
Posted by: neo at March 23, 2007 11:55 AM
Hell, this should send the muslims apoplectic with rage . . .
If women can't appear in public except when covered in a tent, having to take a dump beside a mini-skirt wearing transgendered dyke wanna be should be a tad too much.
First prayer rooms, now they'll want muslim only shitters.
Posted by: Fred at March 23, 2007 01:02 PM
Oh Canada, glorius and free...
(I'd translate it into French too, but I'm unilingual.)
Let's see now...
Male = use bathroom for males;
Female = use bathroom for females;
Other = use bathroom for, uhh, others?
What will the sign look like? Will using the bathroom with the 'other' sign on it - whatever that sign might be - make 'other' feel discriminated against? Will the 'other' sign present too many obstacles to the 'other' users? Will it empower them? Will it make them feel speshul? Will we have to have three 'different' washrooms in every public facility? Will there be a test administered, should one who appears to be 'not other' walk into the wrong place?
What might David Suzuki think of this development, and how it will obviously affect energy usage?
Posted by: Twolane at March 23, 2007 01:17 PM
"Perhaps Andre Boisclair, declared homosexual and so a person familiar
with sexual identity controversies, can answer them for us."
I do not believe Mr. Boisclair's sexual orientation is germane to this question.
Both demands, those of the TG group and the niqab-wearing Muslims (who apparently number only 50 max in Montreal, if that many, according to a Muslim spokesperson), are being supported by extremely politically correct folk whose main purpose in life seems to try to right all the perceived wrongs of the world according to THEIR own moral yardsticks.
Although I do not support Mr. Boisclair politically, I support his view that niqab-wearing Muslims should have to show their face if they want to vote, in the same way that I believe student protesters should not hide their face behind a Palestinian or other provenance kaffiyeh. Mr. Boisclair's motives may be questionable; I have no way of knowing. He may simply be sniffing a few more votes in the offing if he supports the no-niqab rule. But to accuse him of anti-religion bias & somehow connect that to his sexual orientation is wrong, IMHO.
Would amending Quebec's electoral law constitute an anti-religion bias? Not in my view. Remember, there is no objection whatsoever to hijab-wearing women casting their vote, simply because their face is not hidden.
Our Canadian society is already fragmented enough without stirring up even more animosity by trying to cater to EVERY single individual idiosyncrasy. We cannot BE and DO everything to/for ALL people. Some will just have to adjust.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at March 23, 2007 01:48 PM
To date, I'm as much of an Islamophobe as the next guy. However, as I keep reading about these types of antics from the moonbat "progressive" sector, as I observe how our official opposition is trashing any attempt to reform our justice system, I start wondering if "submission" to Islam wouldn't be the lesser evil.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at March 23, 2007 05:39 PM
Recent revelations, conclude(to me) that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness, but that belief in RELIGION is, I say, IS a MENTAL ILLNESS.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at March 24, 2007 08:09 AM
When you go enumerating door to door for Elections Canada, you check ID against the face presenting it.
Same as at Election Canada offices, when people show up to vote before the election date.
ID is required to vote. Otherwise, anyone could show up and just say that they're Canadian....and your vote could be the one that they used.
I know this to be true.
Posted by: anonymous at March 24, 2007 06:16 PM
hello
Posted by: jimmy@gmail.com at May 6, 2007 06:16 AM
 
|
|
