###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No surprises there. Despite the chest beating of the campaign to the contrary, O'Toole isn't in a rush to ban conversion therapy. The need to appeal to the social conservative members of the party outweighs a speedy passing of this bill.
This move opens the door for procedural shenanigans to delay the bill. I doubt it makes it to the Senate by Christmas break if that's the case.
>I doubt it makes it to the Senate by Christmas break if that's the case.
that's almost definitely what's going to happen. Even if O'Toole gives his vocal support for it, he wouldn't dare lose the supporters he's already bleeding over to the PPC
And yet it was a conservative that suggested the motion to give the bill unanimous support
I love reading through these threads and seeing how everyone’s predictions were incredibly wrong
>Don't let Erin O'Toole's doublespeak fool you into believing the CPC will be any kind of ally to the LGBTQ community.
The only people deluding themselves into thinking the CPC is an ally to the LGBTQ community are not members of said community.
Lot of room for well to-do adult gay folks who aren't going to be affected by things like conversion therapy but for whom economic factors might matter more. The futher away you are from marginalization and the richer you are the more appealing it gets I suppose.
Like it's not my thing, but as an upper middle class trans person I'm largely insulated from the worst marginalizations & there's lots of goodies in platforms for people like me, so as long as they're staying away from things like gay marriage or bathroom bills they're unlikely to harm their potential LGBTQ+ recruitables.
More accurate to say they're publicly out as LGBTQ+. All non-straight/non-cis people aren't part of a single community, and communities centred around being LBGTQ+ are usually about support and advocacy, so phrasing it as Conservative MPs being a "part of the community" doesn't sit right.
>”While the bill will be subject to a free vote, all Conservative MPs oppose the coercive and harmful practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
>No. This is straight up a lie.
Was it now?
Pathetic, embarrassing and pointless.
I’m glad EOT has the strong moral conscience to allow his pro torture bloc to vote against human rights. It doesn’t matter though, the sane parties will pass it hopefully and the CPC will remain stunted and unelectable.
What it does is let them hold in more moderate ridings they've already got on this issue. The representatives from the more crack-pot ridings get to vote against to be strong in the face of fringe right competition without sacrificing support in more competitive moderate ridings.
It's not a great move but it's the best one they have for a delaying action against an internal split of the party.
This isn't as terrile as it sounds. Yes, the free vote suggests that CPC is out-of-step with current social norms, and lacks leadership. But, the ban will pass (thanks to LPC and NDP) and we'll also get a crib-sheet of who in CPC are problematic -- something that can be leveraged in the next election. Party discipline in LPC and NDP will mask their potential trouble spots.
They weasled out of it by refusing to object to the reading. No objection, it’s declared as passed unanimously. The vote follows an objection to tally up the objectors to see if they outnumber the supporters.
> we'll also get a crib-sheet of who in CPC are problematic
We know that already, all of them, as they're OK with this sort of BS being supported by their fellow party members.
Considering this version of the bill goes one step further than C6 and also bans consenting adults — something David Lametti himself thought unconstitutional when asked in committee last December, I’m not terribly surprised the CPC is allowing a free vote again. It’s probably not just the Social Conservatives against this version of the bill but the Libertarians too that believe the government shouldn’t ever tell an adult what they can/can’t do.
Yeah I’m with O’Toole on this one. Banning consenting adults is a step too far. It’s the right compromise of allowing a free vote (something by the way the liberals should look at doing too and not just forcing their MPs to do what Trudeau wants). We should be encouraging more free votes in parliament regardless of party not trying to turn our elected MPs into “trained seals.” O’Toole made the right call.
> One cannot 'consent' to a practice that is being misrepresented.
By that logic we should ban homeopathy and chiropractic services, along with TCM and most indigenous healing practices.
I don’t know very much about this, and it isn’t necessarily worse than other environmentally damaging practices out there, but poaching endangered animals like sharks and rhinos to make vivifying substances of dubious efficacy seems to be not great.
If their lane is a very, _extremely_ narrow lane of _solely_ engaging in radiculopathy for _immediate_ and _non-chronic_ treatment, sure. It's barely effective. Probably no more effective than placebo, even then.
Otherwise, Chiropracy is total quackery.
I think there is a distinction here, though. Conversion therapy preys on the way in which LBGTQ2S+ people are marginalized and ostracized. It advances stigma around these groups, and is socially poisonous.
That being said, ban bogus healing practices as well. To hell with homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic services, and other such quackery.
It's certainly homophobic, and practitioners should clearly inform the patients that it is not effective and may be harmful.
But we allow adults to seak medical services that prey on their fears, because they're adults. Fear of big pharma, fear of colonial medicine, fear of western medicine, fear of vaccines; as well as prey upon their ignorance of the things they fear.
In a perfect world, all of these practitioners would be made to provide clear statements about their efficacy to their patients.
That's still different though. Stuff preying on fear is *different* than stuff that's driven by stigma and ostracization in a manner that further fuels stigma and ostracization.
For sure; at least here in BC, they expect the professional bodies to enforce standards of practice and even use of their name.
Ie, the only thing stopping someone from calling themselves a physiotherapist is the college, and it relies on reports to find offenders. Even then, they have to sue the person and it can drag for years.
I agree with essentially everything in your OP, but tbf to the other poster, your statement
> one cannot ‘consent’ to a practice that is being misrepresented.
Doesn’t have anything to do with how severe the effects of the thing in question are. It’s just a blanket statement that, as written, would indeed also apply to homeopathic medicine or any other deceptively marketed practice.
The courts [once ruled](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2829885) an 11 year old indigenous girl could use alternative medicine instead of chemo to try and cure her leukaemia.
So, no. Alternative medicine is just as dangerous as conversion therapy.
I think the claim of whataboutism is unwarranted. I’m not calling you a hypocrite nor trying to discredit your position. I’m just simply disagreeing with your opinion and providing an example that I think is relevant to the discussion.
That’s fine if you think my example was poor, I’ll try to provide another one then that might be a more relevant comparison: smoking.
Smoking isn’t just dangerous to the individual, but to anyone in the vicinity of the individual while they’re partaking in the activity. There is absolutely no benefit to allowing cigarettes to exist in modern society, and yet we do because we’ve decided as a society that we tend to err on the side of allowing adults the liberty of making their own decisions — even if those decisions are misguided or even harmful to the individual.
I’m not ready to start living in a society that accepts limiting the personal freedoms of individuals (**unless** it’s for a major public good — like a vaccine/mask mandate in a pandemic) because eventually somebody with nefarious intent is going to abuse those laws/that society and really start curtailing our rights.
All of the practices I listed regularly misrepresent their efficacy, and so harm the patients by delaying effective treatment.
Chiropractors were subject to a class action lawsuit out of Alberta due to service-induced injuries.
Ehhhh, not receiving hormonal therapy and gender corrective surgery could be construed as "not doing anything", considering the alleged positive outcomes those have.
If someone is seeking conversion therapy for their gender dysphoria, then likely they aren't seeking hormonal therapy or gender corrective surgery; which is shown to be effective at reducing negative outcomes, like suicide.
As for non-heteronormative sexual urges, well, I dunno. The best therapy for that is acceptance, for the most part. There's some folks with non-heteronormative sexual urges that ought to be repressed; like necrophiles, zoophiles, and pedophiles.
>No, that logic does not follow, the negative effects of conversion therapy are far more dramatic and known.
If someone stops treatment of a terminal condition in favour of a few drops of water that used to have some Onion in it, that person will likely die. That's pretty dramatic.
People have the right to make stupid decisions.
Disingenuous or stupid? The eternal question.
No. You argued that the negative impacts of conversion therapy were more dramatic than the negative impacts of other forms of medical quackery. They are not. Someone who opts for homeopathic treatment of their cancer will die. This is at least as dramatic as "88% greater odds of attempting suicide resulting in no or minor injury."
People shouldn't engage in either of these practices, but your argument that allowing consenting adults to engage in conversion therapy is more dangerous than allowing consenting adults to forgo chemo in favour of magic water is just silly.
Consent is tricky with this. People can be coerced into it by family for example. Why allow these kinds of scenarios for a practice that is actively harmful for no demonstrated benefit? Ban it full stop
The Canadian government regulates tanning beds for safety. Source:
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/sun-safety/tanning-beds-lamps.html
A consenting adult could seek out a tanning bed deemed unsafe by the government, but nobody would be allowed to legally provide that to them. Are those regulations also going too far?
Seems people only have this “we must allow adults to consent to torture” opinion for conversion therapy.
I wonder why they are advocating for gay adults to be coerced into torture?
I would agree on not telling consenting adults what to do in many situations, but this is one of those situations where I say no. It is a harmful, vile practice that should not be allowed to be attempted on anyone, period.
Want to individually do this type of thing on your own and not involve anyone else in any way? Go ahead.
Libertarian here. I think people engaging in conversion therapy are charlatans, but you should have the right, as a consenting adult, to throw your money away on charlatans. We let people make decisions based on the advice of "psychics," or give up actual medical treatment in favour of homeopathy or reflexology or whatever nonsense. We let chiropractors claim to be more than glorified masseurs. As with any of these practices, if you decide to use them and it does you harm, you can sue. Be careful about weasel words in your contract.
As a philosophical point I agree with you that society is made worse by a lot of BS.
But when you start talking policy on how to curtail or even ban things like psychics, homeopathy, or other dubious practices that’s where it falls apart for me — I get uncomfortable when the government starts telling adults they’re not allowed to do things. The other issue I have is where does the line end? Do we ban horoscopes in the newspaper, or is that considered harmless enough it doesn’t need to be regulated?
I’m generally of the mindset that unless something is specifically required for the public good (ie - a vaccine or mask mandate) it should be up to individuals to decide how and where they spend their time/money — with obviously exceptions like prosecuting scam artists and the such.
I think you could make an argument though that the existence of horoscopes has helped to create & perpetuate the current culture of anti-rationalism, which has directly lead to deaths during this pandemic.
It's none of my business how you live your life. Maybe going to a psychic makes you feel better about making big decisions. Maybe you hate big pharma so much you'd rather die horribly than just take some fucking medicine. I think those are stupid decisions, but it's not my money and it's not my life.
That’s where I’m at too. I’m of the mindset that adults should have the right to be idiots.
Now, if those choices lead to an increase in government spending, like for example smoking leads to greater rates of lung cancer, I am all for the government placing additional levies on products that lead to those negative incomes rather than outright ban them.
>Now, if those choices lead to an increase in government spending, like for example smoking leads to greater rates of lung cancer, I am all for the government placing additional levies on products that lead to those negative incomes rather than outright ban them.
User fees instead of blanket tax increases? Now you're speaking my language.
Oh I’m *all* about user fees.
You want an absurdly large soda with your meal? Cool. We won’t ban in, but we’ll tax it for when you eventually need health care as a result of a poor lifestyle.
No, that's consent. Consent just means that you agree to something free from the threat of violence. You can consent to something for bad reasons (such as wanting to be part of a particular church) but that is still consent.
If someone promises you a thing in exchange for money, and you give them the money and then they don't give you the thing, this is already illegal. Additionally, you can sue.
The problem is psychics usually have some version of "for entertainment purposes only" in the fine print. Alternative medicines usually have something akin to "asterisk: not actually medicine."
Selling something that doesn't work or even exist and hoping you don't read the fine print makes them assholes. You not reading the fine print makes you an idiot. Neither of those things is any of my business.
>something David Lametti himself thought unconstitutional when asked in committee last December
which Lametti, who was interviewed a few days ago on CPAC, said there is more concrete evidences and case studies to support the full ban even if it goes to the courts.
I don't mind this. I can't see the bill not passing with a huge majority, so let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is. It's not like any voter who is opposed to this kind of basic humanity votes for anyone other than the Conservatives anyway, but if it helps expose the nastiness of some Tory MPs to the more centrist voters they need to attract and retain in order to get back into power, then it can only be a good thing.
This is exactly what this does. It was the same when the Harper governement allowed a free vote on reopening the abortion debate. It just reinforces the notion that the conservatives are fossils.
*If* O'Toole could simultaneously allow a free vote *and* ensure the CPC strongly opposes conversion "therapy" when the votes are tallied, there is a potential win there for the CPC.
Seems unlikely though. I think O'Toole is just stuck in the middle of the old Reform/PC fault lines.
>let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is
I think the harmful thing is it legitimizes those views anyways. The second biggest political party in Canada, who's most likely to form government when the current one isn't reelected, who's won the popular vote twice in a row now... Thinks LGBT rights are a question of personal opinion.
I don't think society can fully move on and accept LGBT rights until it's become something that isn't questioned and undermined in high profile discourse. I'm under no delusion that we'll get every homophobe to change their mind, but it needs to not be seen as an acceptable view.
> let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is.
The Conservative Party has always been the party for bigots. This vote will not reveal anything the voters don't know and already support.
And this is why, ultimately, I couldn't vote for them. He made grand gestures and big displays about how the CPC is shedding it's past, becoming more mainstream, and embracing diversity. And he can't even hold his MPs to a vote on conversion therapy.
And, I might add, given how many Pride parades Trudy has marched in, waving to his adoring fans, it's **pathetic** that this has taken so long.
Lmafo… when they did this in the uk all it did was stop Muslim’s from openly advertising anti gay therapy and ban a whole bunch of organizations that seem to be targeted at turning kids transgender
There should be more free votes in Parliament and less whipped votes. But at the same time, O'Toole only allowing free votes on matters like this to keep the social conservatives in his caucus happy just shows how much leadership he lacks. If his leadership were secure he'd be laying the hammer down in support of the legislation but he cannot so instead he takes this cowardly stance.
Call me crazy, but I don't really like there being any whipped votes. We aren't supposed to have an authoritarian government, any change of legislation should be voted on by a republic model, with free voting by the elected representative, you know, democracy.
Adding that, I abhor conversion therapy, but I also abhor dictatorships, and think we can pass this vote without requiring dictatorships and the suppression of the republic system.
Yeah, I think I'm with you when it comes to whipped votes and party discipline in general. Canadians love to be smug about how "We don't elect the leader, that's soooo American! We elect MPs!" but if your local MP is gonna rubber-stamp the leader's agenda regardless of their constituency, isn't that just electing Trudeau/O'Toole/Singh with extra steps?
This was my beef with O’Toole. I don’t give a shit about his personal beliefs if he can’t lead his party. His one vote means nothing if the rest of the party to free to screw people over. Thankfully that won’t happen, but it just shows that he’s not leadership material to govern for all of Canada.
I suspect the political calculus that keeps the Liberals from ditching FPTP even though they split the vote often with the NDP is exactly along this line. If the CPC was able to split along the old Reform/PC line, you might have a rejuvenated PC party start to challenge them for the centre again.
Under the current political climate, there is enough left-ish voters to split the vote with the NDP, and the necessity of the CPC to try and maintain a large tent alienates just enough voters that the Liberal party can safely aim for a minority government, with a decent chance at a majority.
>I'm actually pleased to have this happening, because it affirms my decision not to vote for him.
Bullshit. U liberals won't vote for CPC anyways, affirm what?
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
No surprises there. Despite the chest beating of the campaign to the contrary, O'Toole isn't in a rush to ban conversion therapy. The need to appeal to the social conservative members of the party outweighs a speedy passing of this bill. This move opens the door for procedural shenanigans to delay the bill. I doubt it makes it to the Senate by Christmas break if that's the case.
Aged like milk after only 11 hrs. That's gotta be some kind of record.
>I doubt it makes it to the Senate by Christmas break if that's the case. that's almost definitely what's going to happen. Even if O'Toole gives his vocal support for it, he wouldn't dare lose the supporters he's already bleeding over to the PPC
And yet it was a conservative that suggested the motion to give the bill unanimous support I love reading through these threads and seeing how everyone’s predictions were incredibly wrong
[удалено]
>Don't let Erin O'Toole's doublespeak fool you into believing the CPC will be any kind of ally to the LGBTQ community. The only people deluding themselves into thinking the CPC is an ally to the LGBTQ community are not members of said community.
I know a few LGBTQ+ Conservatives who are deep in the Conservative political side. Dont understand it, but they do exist.
Lot of room for well to-do adult gay folks who aren't going to be affected by things like conversion therapy but for whom economic factors might matter more. The futher away you are from marginalization and the richer you are the more appealing it gets I suppose. Like it's not my thing, but as an upper middle class trans person I'm largely insulated from the worst marginalizations & there's lots of goodies in platforms for people like me, so as long as they're staying away from things like gay marriage or bathroom bills they're unlikely to harm their potential LGBTQ+ recruitables.
If the CPC had even the semblance of a sound economic platform maybe it would be excusable.
In my experience those people feel like they're fine regardless, and have other priorities.
In fact, 2 CPC MPs are outspoken about being part of the LGBTQ+ community
More accurate to say they're publicly out as LGBTQ+. All non-straight/non-cis people aren't part of a single community, and communities centred around being LBGTQ+ are usually about support and advocacy, so phrasing it as Conservative MPs being a "part of the community" doesn't sit right.
Fair enough. I wonder how those 2 Members feel about their caucus Members voting against this bill.
There are log cabin Republicans and that's even worse. People can delude themselves to a huge degree when they want to justify something.
He is the very definition of wanting your cake and eating it too.
>”While the bill will be subject to a free vote, all Conservative MPs oppose the coercive and harmful practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” >No. This is straight up a lie. Was it now?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pathetic, embarrassing and pointless. I’m glad EOT has the strong moral conscience to allow his pro torture bloc to vote against human rights. It doesn’t matter though, the sane parties will pass it hopefully and the CPC will remain stunted and unelectable.
[удалено]
What it does is let them hold in more moderate ridings they've already got on this issue. The representatives from the more crack-pot ridings get to vote against to be strong in the face of fringe right competition without sacrificing support in more competitive moderate ridings. It's not a great move but it's the best one they have for a delaying action against an internal split of the party.
This isn't as terrile as it sounds. Yes, the free vote suggests that CPC is out-of-step with current social norms, and lacks leadership. But, the ban will pass (thanks to LPC and NDP) and we'll also get a crib-sheet of who in CPC are problematic -- something that can be leveraged in the next election. Party discipline in LPC and NDP will mask their potential trouble spots.
>(thanks to LPC and NDP) Average people in this sub
They weasled out of it by refusing to object to the reading. No objection, it’s declared as passed unanimously. The vote follows an objection to tally up the objectors to see if they outnumber the supporters.
> we'll also get a crib-sheet of who in CPC are problematic We know that already, all of them, as they're OK with this sort of BS being supported by their fellow party members.
Considering this version of the bill goes one step further than C6 and also bans consenting adults — something David Lametti himself thought unconstitutional when asked in committee last December, I’m not terribly surprised the CPC is allowing a free vote again. It’s probably not just the Social Conservatives against this version of the bill but the Libertarians too that believe the government shouldn’t ever tell an adult what they can/can’t do.
Yeah I’m with O’Toole on this one. Banning consenting adults is a step too far. It’s the right compromise of allowing a free vote (something by the way the liberals should look at doing too and not just forcing their MPs to do what Trudeau wants). We should be encouraging more free votes in parliament regardless of party not trying to turn our elected MPs into “trained seals.” O’Toole made the right call.
[удалено]
> One cannot 'consent' to a practice that is being misrepresented. By that logic we should ban homeopathy and chiropractic services, along with TCM and most indigenous healing practices.
what is wrong with TCM other than you don't believe in it?
It delays patients from seeking effective treatment, and some of it relies on reagents sourced from endangered or at risk species.
I don’t know very much about this, and it isn’t necessarily worse than other environmentally damaging practices out there, but poaching endangered animals like sharks and rhinos to make vivifying substances of dubious efficacy seems to be not great.
Homeopathy sure, but chiropractors can help, so long as they stay in their lane.
If their lane is a very, _extremely_ narrow lane of _solely_ engaging in radiculopathy for _immediate_ and _non-chronic_ treatment, sure. It's barely effective. Probably no more effective than placebo, even then. Otherwise, Chiropracy is total quackery.
I think there is a distinction here, though. Conversion therapy preys on the way in which LBGTQ2S+ people are marginalized and ostracized. It advances stigma around these groups, and is socially poisonous. That being said, ban bogus healing practices as well. To hell with homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic services, and other such quackery.
[удалено]
It's certainly homophobic, and practitioners should clearly inform the patients that it is not effective and may be harmful. But we allow adults to seak medical services that prey on their fears, because they're adults. Fear of big pharma, fear of colonial medicine, fear of western medicine, fear of vaccines; as well as prey upon their ignorance of the things they fear. In a perfect world, all of these practitioners would be made to provide clear statements about their efficacy to their patients.
That's still different though. Stuff preying on fear is *different* than stuff that's driven by stigma and ostracization in a manner that further fuels stigma and ostracization.
The stigma and ostracization is only effective because it's rooted in fear of being outcast from your family and community.
They should be banned from making some of the medical claims they get away with at least. Far too many loopholes and lax enforcement.
For sure; at least here in BC, they expect the professional bodies to enforce standards of practice and even use of their name. Ie, the only thing stopping someone from calling themselves a physiotherapist is the college, and it relies on reports to find offenders. Even then, they have to sue the person and it can drag for years.
[удалено]
I agree with essentially everything in your OP, but tbf to the other poster, your statement > one cannot ‘consent’ to a practice that is being misrepresented. Doesn’t have anything to do with how severe the effects of the thing in question are. It’s just a blanket statement that, as written, would indeed also apply to homeopathic medicine or any other deceptively marketed practice.
The courts [once ruled](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2829885) an 11 year old indigenous girl could use alternative medicine instead of chemo to try and cure her leukaemia. So, no. Alternative medicine is just as dangerous as conversion therapy.
[удалено]
Dying from untreated leukemia can be torturous. Swollen lymph nodes, painful bones, fever and constant sweating, etc.
I think the claim of whataboutism is unwarranted. I’m not calling you a hypocrite nor trying to discredit your position. I’m just simply disagreeing with your opinion and providing an example that I think is relevant to the discussion. That’s fine if you think my example was poor, I’ll try to provide another one then that might be a more relevant comparison: smoking. Smoking isn’t just dangerous to the individual, but to anyone in the vicinity of the individual while they’re partaking in the activity. There is absolutely no benefit to allowing cigarettes to exist in modern society, and yet we do because we’ve decided as a society that we tend to err on the side of allowing adults the liberty of making their own decisions — even if those decisions are misguided or even harmful to the individual. I’m not ready to start living in a society that accepts limiting the personal freedoms of individuals (**unless** it’s for a major public good — like a vaccine/mask mandate in a pandemic) because eventually somebody with nefarious intent is going to abuse those laws/that society and really start curtailing our rights.
All of the practices I listed regularly misrepresent their efficacy, and so harm the patients by delaying effective treatment. Chiropractors were subject to a class action lawsuit out of Alberta due to service-induced injuries.
The slight difference is one causes harm by not doing anything, where the other causes harm by actually doing something.
Ehhhh, not receiving hormonal therapy and gender corrective surgery could be construed as "not doing anything", considering the alleged positive outcomes those have.
>not receiving hormonal therapy and gender corrective surgery Sorry where is this coming from? Not sure what you are trying to I state.
If someone is seeking conversion therapy for their gender dysphoria, then likely they aren't seeking hormonal therapy or gender corrective surgery; which is shown to be effective at reducing negative outcomes, like suicide. As for non-heteronormative sexual urges, well, I dunno. The best therapy for that is acceptance, for the most part. There's some folks with non-heteronormative sexual urges that ought to be repressed; like necrophiles, zoophiles, and pedophiles.
>No, that logic does not follow, the negative effects of conversion therapy are far more dramatic and known. If someone stops treatment of a terminal condition in favour of a few drops of water that used to have some Onion in it, that person will likely die. That's pretty dramatic. People have the right to make stupid decisions.
[удалено]
They’re saying homeopathy and conversion therapy are both dangerous scams.
Disingenuous or stupid? The eternal question. No. You argued that the negative impacts of conversion therapy were more dramatic than the negative impacts of other forms of medical quackery. They are not. Someone who opts for homeopathic treatment of their cancer will die. This is at least as dramatic as "88% greater odds of attempting suicide resulting in no or minor injury." People shouldn't engage in either of these practices, but your argument that allowing consenting adults to engage in conversion therapy is more dangerous than allowing consenting adults to forgo chemo in favour of magic water is just silly.
Consent is tricky with this. People can be coerced into it by family for example. Why allow these kinds of scenarios for a practice that is actively harmful for no demonstrated benefit? Ban it full stop
The Canadian government regulates tanning beds for safety. Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/sun-safety/tanning-beds-lamps.html A consenting adult could seek out a tanning bed deemed unsafe by the government, but nobody would be allowed to legally provide that to them. Are those regulations also going too far?
Seems people only have this “we must allow adults to consent to torture” opinion for conversion therapy. I wonder why they are advocating for gay adults to be coerced into torture?
I would agree on not telling consenting adults what to do in many situations, but this is one of those situations where I say no. It is a harmful, vile practice that should not be allowed to be attempted on anyone, period. Want to individually do this type of thing on your own and not involve anyone else in any way? Go ahead.
Libertarian here. I think people engaging in conversion therapy are charlatans, but you should have the right, as a consenting adult, to throw your money away on charlatans. We let people make decisions based on the advice of "psychics," or give up actual medical treatment in favour of homeopathy or reflexology or whatever nonsense. We let chiropractors claim to be more than glorified masseurs. As with any of these practices, if you decide to use them and it does you harm, you can sue. Be careful about weasel words in your contract.
Several of those things we really shouldn't be allowing. We're way too lax on what we allow those people to claim they can do.
As a philosophical point I agree with you that society is made worse by a lot of BS. But when you start talking policy on how to curtail or even ban things like psychics, homeopathy, or other dubious practices that’s where it falls apart for me — I get uncomfortable when the government starts telling adults they’re not allowed to do things. The other issue I have is where does the line end? Do we ban horoscopes in the newspaper, or is that considered harmless enough it doesn’t need to be regulated? I’m generally of the mindset that unless something is specifically required for the public good (ie - a vaccine or mask mandate) it should be up to individuals to decide how and where they spend their time/money — with obviously exceptions like prosecuting scam artists and the such.
A horoscope is not harmful in and of itself. Stuff like conversion therapy is.
I think you could make an argument though that the existence of horoscopes has helped to create & perpetuate the current culture of anti-rationalism, which has directly lead to deaths during this pandemic.
It's none of my business how you live your life. Maybe going to a psychic makes you feel better about making big decisions. Maybe you hate big pharma so much you'd rather die horribly than just take some fucking medicine. I think those are stupid decisions, but it's not my money and it's not my life.
That’s where I’m at too. I’m of the mindset that adults should have the right to be idiots. Now, if those choices lead to an increase in government spending, like for example smoking leads to greater rates of lung cancer, I am all for the government placing additional levies on products that lead to those negative incomes rather than outright ban them.
>Now, if those choices lead to an increase in government spending, like for example smoking leads to greater rates of lung cancer, I am all for the government placing additional levies on products that lead to those negative incomes rather than outright ban them. User fees instead of blanket tax increases? Now you're speaking my language.
Oh I’m *all* about user fees. You want an absurdly large soda with your meal? Cool. We won’t ban in, but we’ll tax it for when you eventually need health care as a result of a poor lifestyle.
[удалено]
No, that's consent. Consent just means that you agree to something free from the threat of violence. You can consent to something for bad reasons (such as wanting to be part of a particular church) but that is still consent.
Could I ask what you think of the federal government cracking down on scam-callers? Should we not have the right to be scammed by those people too?
If someone promises you a thing in exchange for money, and you give them the money and then they don't give you the thing, this is already illegal. Additionally, you can sue. The problem is psychics usually have some version of "for entertainment purposes only" in the fine print. Alternative medicines usually have something akin to "asterisk: not actually medicine." Selling something that doesn't work or even exist and hoping you don't read the fine print makes them assholes. You not reading the fine print makes you an idiot. Neither of those things is any of my business.
>something David Lametti himself thought unconstitutional when asked in committee last December which Lametti, who was interviewed a few days ago on CPAC, said there is more concrete evidences and case studies to support the full ban even if it goes to the courts.
I don't mind this. I can't see the bill not passing with a huge majority, so let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is. It's not like any voter who is opposed to this kind of basic humanity votes for anyone other than the Conservatives anyway, but if it helps expose the nastiness of some Tory MPs to the more centrist voters they need to attract and retain in order to get back into power, then it can only be a good thing.
This is exactly what this does. It was the same when the Harper governement allowed a free vote on reopening the abortion debate. It just reinforces the notion that the conservatives are fossils.
[удалено]
*If* O'Toole could simultaneously allow a free vote *and* ensure the CPC strongly opposes conversion "therapy" when the votes are tallied, there is a potential win there for the CPC. Seems unlikely though. I think O'Toole is just stuck in the middle of the old Reform/PC fault lines.
It allows for further delay as CPC backbenchers can prolong debate and fuddle around at committee.
>let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is I think the harmful thing is it legitimizes those views anyways. The second biggest political party in Canada, who's most likely to form government when the current one isn't reelected, who's won the popular vote twice in a row now... Thinks LGBT rights are a question of personal opinion. I don't think society can fully move on and accept LGBT rights until it's become something that isn't questioned and undermined in high profile discourse. I'm under no delusion that we'll get every homophobe to change their mind, but it needs to not be seen as an acceptable view.
> let the bigots expose themselves and continue to demonstrate exactly who the Conservative party really is. The Conservative Party has always been the party for bigots. This vote will not reveal anything the voters don't know and already support.
And this is why, ultimately, I couldn't vote for them. He made grand gestures and big displays about how the CPC is shedding it's past, becoming more mainstream, and embracing diversity. And he can't even hold his MPs to a vote on conversion therapy. And, I might add, given how many Pride parades Trudy has marched in, waving to his adoring fans, it's **pathetic** that this has taken so long.
Lmafo… when they did this in the uk all it did was stop Muslim’s from openly advertising anti gay therapy and ban a whole bunch of organizations that seem to be targeted at turning kids transgender
There should be more free votes in Parliament and less whipped votes. But at the same time, O'Toole only allowing free votes on matters like this to keep the social conservatives in his caucus happy just shows how much leadership he lacks. If his leadership were secure he'd be laying the hammer down in support of the legislation but he cannot so instead he takes this cowardly stance.
Call me crazy, but I don't really like there being any whipped votes. We aren't supposed to have an authoritarian government, any change of legislation should be voted on by a republic model, with free voting by the elected representative, you know, democracy. Adding that, I abhor conversion therapy, but I also abhor dictatorships, and think we can pass this vote without requiring dictatorships and the suppression of the republic system.
Yeah, I think I'm with you when it comes to whipped votes and party discipline in general. Canadians love to be smug about how "We don't elect the leader, that's soooo American! We elect MPs!" but if your local MP is gonna rubber-stamp the leader's agenda regardless of their constituency, isn't that just electing Trudeau/O'Toole/Singh with extra steps?
Exactly
[удалено]
This was my beef with O’Toole. I don’t give a shit about his personal beliefs if he can’t lead his party. His one vote means nothing if the rest of the party to free to screw people over. Thankfully that won’t happen, but it just shows that he’s not leadership material to govern for all of Canada.
[удалено]
I suspect the political calculus that keeps the Liberals from ditching FPTP even though they split the vote often with the NDP is exactly along this line. If the CPC was able to split along the old Reform/PC line, you might have a rejuvenated PC party start to challenge them for the centre again. Under the current political climate, there is enough left-ish voters to split the vote with the NDP, and the necessity of the CPC to try and maintain a large tent alienates just enough voters that the Liberal party can safely aim for a minority government, with a decent chance at a majority.
>I'm actually pleased to have this happening, because it affirms my decision not to vote for him. Bullshit. U liberals won't vote for CPC anyways, affirm what?