.
We have just gotten word that the amended status of the federal ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ bill (Bill C-279) is set to be ruled upon by the Speaker of the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 27. The Speaker will determine if the Justice Committee’s approved amendments are to go forward — that is, the amendments that were approved before the meeting was interrupted by two unregistered Conservative MPs. (See the Xtra! article on that meeting, here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Conservatives_filibuster_trans_bill-12904.aspx).
.
The amendments include the removal of ‘gender expression’ as a protected ground, and the addition of a definition for ‘gender identity’, which were the conditions placed by some Conservative MPs to have their vote.
.
The definition of ‘gender identity’ put forward by Garrison, which is based on the definition of ‘gender identity’ in the found in the Yogyakarta Principles (Page 6), is:

Gender identity means, in respect of an individual, the individual’s deeply felt internal in individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth

.
Update, 6:30 pm:
.
Randall Garrison, the NDP MP sponsoring the bill, provided the following insights via Facebook:

We are arguing that the amendments didn’t get fair and full consideration at the Justice committee due to the actions of a Conservative minority. Normally you don’t get a second shot at amendments already introduced at committee. The Speaker won’t consider content, just procedures. We need the compromise amendments in order to hang on to the support of the 15 Conservatives who voted in favour at 2nd reading and then the bill will pass. We are hopeful he will allow them…

.

.

Click on the “Read More” button to reveal at text-only version of this letter.
Read more…

.
Xtra! Ottawa has provided a rather detailed account of the line-by-line committee reading of Bill C-279 — otherwise known as the federal ‘gender identity’ bill — which resulted in the Bill not being amended and which, as a result of its non-amendment, now has a less likely chance of passing Third Reading in the House of Commons. (See the Xtra! article here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Conservatives_filibuster_trans_bill-12904.aspx). As you may recall, Bill C-279 is the bill that seeks to add ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ to the anti-discrimination and anti-hate crimes provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code of Canada, respectively.

Some highlights of the line-by-line committee meeting (as excerpted from the Xtra! article with a few additional notes) are:

• The meeting began with MPs carrying a motion to remove the term “gender expression” from the bill.
  .
• Fifteen Conservative MPs who voted for the bill at its second reading said they would continue to support the bill only if the term “gender expression” was removed or defined.
  .
• The bill’s author, NDP MP Randall Garrison, offered a definition of “gender identity” he sourced from the Yogyakarta Principles, a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity created by a group of international human rights experts in 2006.
  .
• After much debate, Garrison’s definition of “gender identity” carried, making his definition and the removal of “gender expression” the only amendments approved. Ten other amendments were dropped because they pertained to the term “gender expression” or called for a definition of “gender identity.”
  .
• Garrison motioned for an extension of 30 days to continue consideration of the bill because previous committee meetings had been interrupted. The meeting ended before the extension — and the final version of the bill — could be approved. Therefore, the bill must now go back before the House without any of the aforementioned amendments.
  .
• While this unamended version of the bill is definitely the best version, it is unlikely to pass given the requests made by the supporting Conservative MPs.
  .
• The Bill is expected to get its Third Reading in the House of Commons in February. If passed, it will then have to go through the Senate.
  .

Notes:

• The definition of “gender identity” found in the Yogyakarta Principles (Page 6) is as follows:

Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.

• The definition of ‘gender identity’ put forward by Garrison (courtesy of Sarah Manns, Garrison’s Parliamentary Assistant) was:

Gender identity means, in respect of an individual, the individual`s deeply felt internal in individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that the individual was assigned at birth

• Significantly, this is the first time in Canadian history when the definition of a requested ground has been added to a bill, in what is understood to be an attempt to restrict the reach of the protections in question. This is absolutely despicable and represents the fear, misunderstanding, and contempt that is held towards transsexual, transgender, genderqueer, gender-neutral, and gender non-identifying people today.

.