ArcticBill
ArcticBill
ArcticBill

I am not denying there is discrimination. However, you have to admit it is easier for two women to travel together, hold hand in public and even display subtle (i.e. not making out) affection in public. On the other hand heterosexual men who are merely perceived as gay are subject to violence. Again, not denying

You are comparing apples and oranges. Gay men are attacked just for sharing a flat or holding hands in public. Gay women who do the same, even in homophobic bastions like Jamaica, South Africa, Botswana...etc don't get targeted. The lesbians you speak of who get targeted for violence go far beyond merely sharing a

You don't play Oppression Olympics except when women's groups are rattling tin cup, asking the government for funding. In Canada, we call it the "race to the bottom", and women's groups are seasoned professionals at that game. You have no idea how many times I have heard a woman say, "I have it worse, I am a woman,

Actually gay women are higher earners than heterosexual and gay male couples. Also CNN and the Globe & Mail published a study which said children from gay women households fare better in life than any other familiar relationship. If need be, I can dig up the source. But it is pretty common knowledge as it made all

You can't dispute that the statutory rape laws are almost exclusively applied to the older, non-white male. It is almost always at the behest of the girl's parents who disapprove of the relationship. There was one high-profile case a couple years ago with the lesbian couple, but that is the exception, not the norm. We

No, they are not, at least in Canada. Remember the Vagina Monologues where there was a story of a 24 year-old woman hooking up with a 14 year-old girl, plying her with alcohol and having sex? The girl was quoted as saying, "if it was rape, it was good rape." If that were a gay male duo or even a heterosexual

The close in age prosecutions are used EVEN MORE against male homosexuals and are disproportionately applied toward males and non-whites. The usual scenario with close in age prosecutions for statutory rape is the white teen girl is dating an older black dude and the girl's parents relentlessly pursue prosecution.

Yes, in my original statement I said it is on the lower end of the scale of harassment faced by members of the GLBT community. Just browse GLBT-based hate crimes database held by the Southern Poverty Law Centre; almost all incidents are against gay men.

It is a fluff provision. It is akin to a preamble; it lacks any legal effect. For instance, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), the equ. of the Bill of Rights, more or less, has a blurb about the supremacy of God. Care to guess how much authority that provision has influenced the Charter

Firstly, that is not terribly relevant who passes the law; women have, long before being given the vote wielded political power. Before the 19th Amendment was passed, the passing of the 18th Amendment was spear-headed by women's groups. Likewise women played instrumental roles in the American Revolution, the French

Lesbians face the "first world problems" version of homophobia. Almost all laws prohibiting "homosexual" behaviour only target male homosexuality; there are few, if any anti-cunnilingus laws. Also I have lived in extremely homophobic countries, the latest being Belize. Gay women can rent a room even where there is

Trafficked or not, wouldn't these women enjoy the current rights to access abortion just like any other woman. The way I read that provision is it merely fails to create a new protection for a subset of trafficked persons, trafficked women. However, it would not restrict such a victim to access pre-existing and

The wording is poor, but the substance of the dress code is not discriminatory. It is a Catholic school with an expectation of a cisnormative dress code. As you conceded, there are simply more dress options for females than males. Therefore, it stood to reason that the female dress code be more in depth.

Okay, as a former legislative drafter I have to agree with you on that. It was poorly worded. Granted it is a conservative Catholic school, the dress code (or any codified set of rules) should be direct and to the point. In law and legislative drafting, brevity is a virtue.

Ah the ad hominem attack... The ultimate tool for de-railing. I too am a lawyer and given your screen name, I assume you may be as well. Are you arguing that I am wrong or that my point is unsound? If you want to go the ad hominem route, fill your boots :)

The dress code is not necessarily sexist merely because there are more instructions to the female students. Women have a lot more fashion options, even in formal settings than men. We men have the option of a suit and tie.

The way I read the poorly drafted provision, the portion you bolded confirms that it is incoherent. It merely says a provider cannot be "required" to perform an abortion. It does not "prohibit" funding to be used if the abortion is provided voluntarily by both the victim and service provider. That is how I read the

The category of prohibited funding does not create new restrictions per se because such funding does not exist, and victims of rape have over-lapping access to other sources. Therefore, whether you want to interpret this as a new "prohibition" or the omission of a new source of funding, as William Shakespeare once

I have a sense of humour, but I think there is a double standard. It is young, black men being shot. It is a sensitive issue. If a teenage boy pretended to abduct his girlfriend using a white van and duct taping her would cause outrage. I can just see the feminists doing the Chicken Little bit about the "rape culture"

On the last paragraph, of course not. That was not my point. All I said is the absence of additional support for access to abortion merely maintains the status quo. Whatever rights that 13 year-old girl had will remain in attack. I disagree on it affecting Hyde votes. The provision would only be applicable to the Act