Phil McColeman's views on crime are also clear: he supports getting "tough on crime".
So how does Phil feel about hate crime against transgendered people? Answer: he doesn't oppose it.
A reader of this blog forwarded us an email exchange that he had with Phil McColeman regarding Bill C-389. That Bill would have strengthened the rights of transgendered individuals, including amending the Criminal Code to include the terms "Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" to the hate crime offences. Getting tough on crime – Phil should love this, right? Wrong.
Phil McColeman opposed Bill C-389, arguing that "Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" were not "clearly defined".
Well a lot of Criminal Code provisions are not clearly defined, but that doesn't stop the police and courts from enforcing them. For example, "sexual assault" is simply an assault that is "sexual". When the sexual assault provisions were enacted in 1983 nobody had any idea what they meant, but the lawyers and police figured it out anyway. Does Phil think that we should make rape legal just because "sexual assault" is not clearly defined? No way. Phil, as a "tough on crime" nut, understands how the Criminal Code works.
So according to Phil, men who wear a kilt have full protection of the law but men-cum-women who wear dresses don't. It's pathetic, but you know what there are still racist people out there too.
[for the entire text of the reader forwarded email, click here]
