Does Bill C-6 prevent "good faith" conversations?
By Dr. Iain Provan
July 19, 2021
[Editor's note:
This article was originally written in English and the definitions included in the text have been translated from English sources]
What is a "good faith" conversation? It's not entirely clear, but Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "good faith" suggests that such a conversation would be marked "honesty." The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary also leads us to the idea of a conversation that “intends to be honest and useful”. Wikipedia indicates an exchange marked by "a sincere intention to be fair,
open and honest, whatever the outcome of the interaction".
July 19, 2021
[Editor's note:
This article was originally written in English and the definitions included in the text have been translated from English sources]
What is a "good faith" conversation? It's not entirely clear, but Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "good faith" suggests that such a conversation would be marked "honesty." The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary also leads us to the idea of a conversation that “intends to be honest and useful”. Wikipedia indicates an exchange marked by "a sincere intention to be fair,
open and honest, whatever the outcome of the interaction".
This question is important to the scope of Bill C-6. At the end of 2020, Canada was very concerned that if C-6 became law, conversations between family members, teachers, pastors, doctors and other counselors and educators could be criminalized - that they were or were not marked by honesty, and were sincerely intended to be useful, fair and open. In response, Justice Minister David Lametti assured Members of the Justice Committee that no one needed to worry. “Good faith conversations” about a person's sexuality were not criminalized, he asserted, since Bill C-6 defines “conversion therapy” using the language of “practice, practice”. service or treatment ”- and all of these terms“ imply an intervention, that which is generally offered to the public or to a segment of the public. He continued, “So a simple conversation cannot be considered a practice, service or treatment, unless it is part of a formalized intervention such as a talk therapy session.
It didn't take long for questions to arise about Minister Lametti's allegations. Neither "practice", "service" or "treatment" is defined elsewhere in the Criminal Code of Canada, and in terms of normal use the word "practice" is particularly broad. According to Merriam Webster, this is any “repeated or customary action”. The importance of this became clear in a particularly important (but massively underrated) exchange during the Justice Committee hearings. Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin described a hypothetical case in which a mother concerned about the well-being of her son refuses to allow him to go to school dressed as a girl. Mr. Fortin asked the one of Lametti's own Justice Department officials if that counted as "conversion therapy" within the meaning of the bill. The manager initially responded by following "the Lametti line", arguing that this does not constitute a "practice, treatment or service" - it is not a "formalized intervention". However, when Fortin objected that the mother was surely engaging in a "practice", the official conceded that the term "practice" is indeed a broader term than the other two in the definition of the bill, and she seemed to define "practice" simply as what is "usual and regular" rather than "formalized". Fortin's next question was: What if parents suggested that a psychologist dissuade their son from wearing makeup and wearing heels at school? Would they be committing a crime under the new law? The official declined to answer this question, leaving the onus on the courts to decide if and when the crime of "conversion therapy" was committed.
“The law is apparently so vague that a parent will have to go to court to find out if an offense has been committed. "It turns out, therefore, despite Minister Lametti's assurances, that while a single 'simple conversation' in the family home may not be 'conversion therapy', more than one of those conversations (a 'repeated action or customary ”) - even if each is marked by honesty and is sincerely useful, fair and open - it is most likely such therapy. And by the time we come to worried parents consulting a psychologist on such an issue, the law is apparently so vague that it will take a parent to go to court to find out if an offense has been committed. In this case it is very likely that an offense has been committed, because now we have moved from a "practice" at home
to a professional context in which - some honesty, sincerity, etc.
So what happened to the confident claim that “good faith conversations” about a person's sexuality are not criminalized by Bill C-6? The point is that such conversations are not clearly protected at all. In fact, the bill is designed to make it as difficult as possible, even for adults, to engage in such conversations with therapists of their choice and with other professionals (such as religious leaders) - by criminalizing both advertising and remuneration for such services. If the government were truly interested in protecting "good faith" conversations, it would have taken steps long ago to address these realities. They would long ago have accepted amendments, for example, like those proposed by former Bloc Québécois MP Richard Marceau (writing for the Center for Israeli and Jewish Affairs), which explicitly offer protection to "private conversations" in which personal opinions are expressed, as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders on sincere beliefs and the expectations that flow from them ”. But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith. as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders about sincere beliefs and expectations that flow from them." But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith. as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders about sincere beliefs and expectations that flow from them." But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith.
It didn't take long for questions to arise about Minister Lametti's allegations. Neither "practice", "service" or "treatment" is defined elsewhere in the Criminal Code of Canada, and in terms of normal use the word "practice" is particularly broad. According to Merriam Webster, this is any “repeated or customary action”. The importance of this became clear in a particularly important (but massively underrated) exchange during the Justice Committee hearings. Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin described a hypothetical case in which a mother concerned about the well-being of her son refuses to allow him to go to school dressed as a girl. Mr. Fortin asked the one of Lametti's own Justice Department officials if that counted as "conversion therapy" within the meaning of the bill. The manager initially responded by following "the Lametti line", arguing that this does not constitute a "practice, treatment or service" - it is not a "formalized intervention". However, when Fortin objected that the mother was surely engaging in a "practice", the official conceded that the term "practice" is indeed a broader term than the other two in the definition of the bill, and she seemed to define "practice" simply as what is "usual and regular" rather than "formalized". Fortin's next question was: What if parents suggested that a psychologist dissuade their son from wearing makeup and wearing heels at school? Would they be committing a crime under the new law? The official declined to answer this question, leaving the onus on the courts to decide if and when the crime of "conversion therapy" was committed.
“The law is apparently so vague that a parent will have to go to court to find out if an offense has been committed. "It turns out, therefore, despite Minister Lametti's assurances, that while a single 'simple conversation' in the family home may not be 'conversion therapy', more than one of those conversations (a 'repeated action or customary ”) - even if each is marked by honesty and is sincerely useful, fair and open - it is most likely such therapy. And by the time we come to worried parents consulting a psychologist on such an issue, the law is apparently so vague that it will take a parent to go to court to find out if an offense has been committed. In this case it is very likely that an offense has been committed, because now we have moved from a "practice" at home
to a professional context in which - some honesty, sincerity, etc.
So what happened to the confident claim that “good faith conversations” about a person's sexuality are not criminalized by Bill C-6? The point is that such conversations are not clearly protected at all. In fact, the bill is designed to make it as difficult as possible, even for adults, to engage in such conversations with therapists of their choice and with other professionals (such as religious leaders) - by criminalizing both advertising and remuneration for such services. If the government were truly interested in protecting "good faith" conversations, it would have taken steps long ago to address these realities. They would long ago have accepted amendments, for example, like those proposed by former Bloc Québécois MP Richard Marceau (writing for the Center for Israeli and Jewish Affairs), which explicitly offer protection to "private conversations" in which personal opinions are expressed, as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders on sincere beliefs and the expectations that flow from them ”. But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith. as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders about sincere beliefs and expectations that flow from them." But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith. as well as "conversations with pastoral counselors, or religious leaders about sincere beliefs and expectations that flow from them." But this government is not at all interested in protecting Canadian freedoms in this way and it itself seems to be acting in bad faith.
Free to Care
https://www.aidersanscontraintes.ca/blogue/sincrement-vtre-le-projet-de-loi-c-6-empche-t-il-les-conversations-de-bonne-foi-
https://www.aidersanscontraintes.ca/blogue/sincrement-vtre-le-projet-de-loi-c-6-empche-t-il-les-conversations-de-bonne-foi-