Chow's flight rules motion defeated
FEDERAL POLITICS / Trans activists say ignorance kept Tories from changing discriminatory regulations
Dale Smith / National / Thursday, February 09, 2012
Share |

NDP MP Olivia Chow’s attempt to repeal an air screening regulation that could prevent trans Canadians from flying went down in defeat at the Commons transport committee Feb 9.
 
The committee voted six to five to reject Chow’s motion.
 
“If they don’t want to scrap those regulations, they could go to where Australia is with three categories,” Chow says, referring to the “indeterminate” gender category available on Australian passports. “There are many other alternatives. What the government is doing is just dumb.”
 
Chow argued that gender is secondary to one’s appearance matching one's photo, especially when new technologies such as retinal scanning are becoming commonplace.
 
Liberal transport critic Denis Coderre insisted the vote be recorded.
Olivia Chow says that 'what the government is doing is just dumb.'
(XTRA FILES)
 
“It was an issue of discrimination; it was not an issue of security. It has nothing to do with gender,” Coderre says. “It’s about the reality, and a person is a person, that’s it. We’re very disappointed, and we’ll keep up the fight.”
 
The NDP queer issues critic, Randall Garrison, joined the committee for the debate on the issue and argued that the regulations violate the right to mobility as guaranteed under the Charter. He also noted the plight of trans people who don’t wish to have gender reassignment surgery and thus can’t get medical certificates to prove their status, and who can’t get other identification changed.
 
“They’re taking a very hard line and demonstrating both that they don’t understand and they don’t care,” Garrison says.
 
Garrison suspects part of the government’s refusal to admit the possibility that the regulation may be flawed is because it was modelled after similar regulations in the US, which he noted are currently being challenged in court there.
 
Arguing for the Conservatives, Pierre Poilievre insisted the rules do not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation” and said there have been provisions in place since 2007 for passengers whose appearances may have altered.
 
Amanda Ryan, from Trans Pride Canada, says Poilievre doesn’t understand the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
 
“We have many of the same issues, but gender identity is certainly one unto itself,” Ryan says. “That just isn’t understood, and really the education factor is what needs to happen.”
 
Sophia Cassivi, president of Gender Mosaic, who was also present Thursday, says the regulations affect not only trans people, but anyone who may not conform to gender norms.
 
“What happens to a lady that has had chemo and lost all of her hair who decided to wear a pair of jeans and a shirt, a pair of work boots and no makeup?” Cassivi asks. “Will she be told at the airport that her gender identity doesn’t match her passport?”
 
What about trans people who don’t opt for sex reassignment surgery?
 
“I’m a cross-gender person; I don’t spend my entire life as a female,” Ryan says. “I spend 50 percent of my time as female, 50 percent of my time as male. Why should I have to dress male in order to get on a plane?
 
“The fact that I’m not dressed according to the male gender on my passport is in no way a security risk,” Ryan continues. “I shouldn’t be refused entry on a plane simply because of that. I am quite prepared to make sure that the security people know who I am according to my identity, including removing my wig, removing whatever is necessary to make sure that I am going to match that identity.”
 
Cassivi wonders why the Conservatives are being obstinate about wording in the rules that was likely inserted accidentally.
 
“There is definitely a reluctance to change and not being open to any modification whatsoever to recognize that there was a defect in there,” Cassivi says. “That is quite a situation that we’re dealing with right now for our community.” 


Share |


Reader Comments


 
'Accidental' insertion?
"Cassivi wonders why the Conservatives’ are being obstinate about wording in the rules that was likely inserted accidentally." Based on the timing of it, that the election call had seen C389 die in the Senate, but leaving us very firmly on their radar, that the Tories won their coveted 'majority', that the regulation was slipped in quietly through the back door during the summer break, I do not believe for a second that this regulation was 'accidental' in any way. This is a party of ideologues, adept at their game, and they do not do anything without a reason for it. Call me cynical, but I have that little trust for the Harperites, based on their track record of passive aggressive bigotry.
Natalie Murray, Trenton Ontario
02/09/12 5:46 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
gender is not sex
government id classifies sex (tells whether you have penis or vagina). visually looking at what one is wearing, what their voice sounds like, what their hair looks like, etc, has nothing to do with genitals. security is about proving one's identity, this can be done by facial photo, finger print, retina scan, or taking a pen and matching a signature. to suggest that one must present in a gender role that is congruent with how government things certain sexed people should gender present, is ridiculous. furthermore, if government is now creating a legal gender classification that is only based on biological sex, then we are all in serious trouble folks... this implies that Gender Incongruence does not exist, and that any trans people are not in fact trans. serious implications here.. the dichotomy of legal sex and gender presentation has no factor on security.. and to deny folks access to transportation over such things is discriminatory. shame on the Cons for writing this policy in the first place. Shame on them for mocking and laughing at Lib and NDPers who confronted them in the house. and shame on the Cons for continuing to fight for anti-trans rights policies.. all we need now is one episode and the human rights commission will be busy with a huge case...
Jennifer McCreath, St. John's Newfoundland
02/09/12 9:35 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not enough outrage?
When the lesbian and gay community thought that the Conservatives were going to affect the ability of foreign same-sex couples to get married in Canada, there was a huge amount of outrage (that turned out to be misplaced). But, in response to that outrage, the Conservatives promised to clarify the law to assist foreign same-sex couples. See http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/The_samesex_marriage_matter-11363.aspx In contrast, there has not been the same level of outrage against the air screening regulation that could affect trans people from flying. As a result, the Conservatives have not moved to change the regulation. Is gay marriage (foreign or domestic) the only thing that lesbian and gay people are willing to mobilize about?
Tim, Toronto ON
02/09/12 10:52 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Yes.
Of course it's the only thing that stirs them to action. It's a well-known fact that Ls and Gs are more than willing to ignore/overlook/throw under the bus the Ts.
Jami Shofner, Austin TX
02/10/12 1:58 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
packies and 16 genders
For a group that has been thrown under the bus you are pretty screeching. The reality is that gays and lesbians spent 40 years or more educated everyone about homosexuality. It has paid off. I heard no public education about trans anything during that time and neither has the public. How can you expect public outrage over concepts they have never heard of such as genderqueer and people who claim there are 16 genders. The public sees two categories of trans -- Christine Jorgensen male to females with surgury and crazy women pretending to be men (with packies pretending to be penises). Such is reality. Don't get angry at gays and lesbians because you invent categories of identity then just expect the public to respect it because you tell them to. Try working for the next 40 years on informing the public about packies and 16 genders and stop wasting all your time screaming at gays and lesbians for throwing you under the bus. We are nasty and betrayed you -- live with it and move on.
reality therapy, Toronto Ontario
02/11/12 8:37 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Of course
Yes indeed, you are nasty and you did betray us. But surely this is nothing new -- after all, the GL have been waging an organized anti-trans hate campaign for the last thirty years at least. The GL are responsible for the most lurid anti-trans hate propaganda ever conceived of by humanity. Nothing said by the Third Reich about Jews even comes close. You guys take it to a whole new level. It should be obvious to most transpeople by this time that the GL are dangerous enemies, far worse than the Right ever was.
Marat, Bogland Canton
02/11/12 11:36 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hey there
Marat, of Bogland Canton, clam down there a bit. Take a deep breath and re-think for a moment. Your outrage is valid and appreciated. I feel your passion and love for Trans, but as to the GL being dangerous enemies... Breath. If you take a moment and reflect, you will know that G/L have indeed put Trans issues forward in significant ways. Often quietly and behind the scenes. You know this, your passion has just led you somewhere else. G/L are not your enemies, some of us have placed ourselves in harms way to propel Trans rights forward. I know on reflection you'll know this to be true.
Tribes, Toronto ON
02/11/12 12:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Tribes
Hi Tribes, I appreciate your sentiment and realize that there are many noble exceptions to what is unfortunately the rule. I was speaking of the 'movement' as a whole, which bears ultimate responsibility for what is written in its name. By being quiet, you hand the conversation over to the loudmouths who want total freedom for themselves and Draconian fascism for everyone else.
Marat, Bogland Canton
02/11/12 2:02 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Mutual Responsibility
Hey Marat, It's certainly understandable to be pissed about the states of trans rights not just here in Canada but pretty much anywhere in the world. As a lesbian transwoman, I'm not just one but two letters in the rainbow spectrum. It's not all that difficult for me, because I find it offers me two perspectives. Have we been left to fend for ourselves? That's a hard question to answer. I'll use the case of trans-related legal cases as an example. Officially, it doesn't appear so, as virtually every other agency that caters to the rest of the rainbow community caters to us too; something that they mention in their mission statements and program information. At least in the U.S., several groups have launched trans-related lawsuits, for example, one case in New York City, where the city is being sued to change birth certificates without surgery. But has it happened anyway? These organizations COULD do more to help the trans community. Trans people in Idaho, Ohio, and Tennessee still can't get their birth certificates changed after surgery. Legal cases could get the ball rolling here. In terms of individual attitudes, I find the rainbow community as a whole to be very inclusive of us. In any group in the world, there will always be bad apples. You just have to avoid them if you want to make an apple pie.
Julie-Anne, Calgary AB
02/11/12 10:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Keep up the good fight!
I am neither trans, gay or lesbian and I feel everyone should have equal rights and be treated with equal dignity. I will continue to loudly proclaim this to the whole world, and I hope you will all join me. Together we can make a difference, though it is sad that it may take a long time. Keep up the good fight - just make sure you are clear about who the real enemies are.
M, Wilson, Nc US
02/11/12 11:10 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Gender developments head of jurassic policies
A number of things seem necessary to have this problem solved. 1. Canada should have a unified gender framework that distinguishes between and integrates biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Because policy authors do not agree on these concepts, they have a hard time adjusting the rules that were mainly operative based on biological sex. That's the most self-explanatory aspect of gender, but only one of the three principal concepts that render gender as a social construct than a birth condition. 2. Disseminate that unified gender paradigm among policy makers. However, these people listen only to equally powerful structures of authority. So unless the LGBTQ sector has a strong body that will clarify the issue of gender, we can expect continual resistance to change that allows for better living conditions for non-conventional gender categories. 3. The unified gender paradigm must be disseminated in all directions so that even in the absence of policies, people are aware, sensitive, and respectful of diversity. This should be taught in schools and discussed in media. Let's not depend on artists or producers to start the discourse change on gender in media. A respected body has to stand up and say "This is what gender is - even if only for now - but the best understanding we have of our common human condition as socially constructed gendered beings.
Andrew Perez, Toronto Ontario
02/13/12 10:44 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.