by REAL WOMEN OF CANADA. November 7, 2013.
This Report was written by a homosexual activist with input from fifteen listed homosexual organizations with the apparent objective of providing special privileges and legal advantages to the LGBTQ community in policing policies.
If this document is implemented by the police forces, it will result in discrimination against all others who are not in the LGBTQ community.
This Report is allegedly based on a resolution by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) adopted at its annual meeting in Vancouver in August, 2004.
This CACP resolution, however, states that the Canadian Police Community is committed to serving:
• All members of society;
• Supports Canadian democratic values;
• Supports the rule of law, ethical behavior and democratic principles; and
• Advances the preservation of human rights and individual dignity.
This CACP resolution also states that the above should be carried out by way of “bias- free policing”. However, this Report on behalf of the LGBTQ Community, demands just the opposite – namely: that there be a strong bias be made in favour of the LGBTQ Community. This is directly contrary to the above-stated objectives of the CACP resolution.
Some examples of the bias and discriminatory policies recommended in the Report, include the following:
1. A guidebook be developed to use “fair and equitable language” in LGBTQ matters. However, the entire Report is comprised of homosexual language such as the words “homophobia” and “transphobia”, etc. and provides a list of
words and definitions to be used by the police services when referring to the LGBTQ Community;
2. Police services to provide programs, training and policies for the employment of transgendered and transsexuals in the police services (i.e. provide affirmative action for their employment);
3. Police services to provide special compensation, training and education advancement and other incentives and career “laddering” in the police services for LGBTQ Community;
4. Police services to provide paid absences for the transgendered for their medical assessments and treatments including counseling, speech therapy and surgeries;
5. The transgendered and transsexual detainees to be placed in only gender-affirming accommodation to ensure they have access to “gender-affirming” healthcare, such as prescribed hormones;
6. Senior members of police department to publicly champion trans-identified Individuals in the media outlets;
7. Involve the police services in the anti-bullying policies of the school boards even though it is not usually a criminal matter. This is to be done by way of police developing anti-bullying campaigns using social media sites such as
Twitter, Facebook, and You Tube to promote this;
8. Although disclosure to sex partners of HIV/AIDs is a legal requirement according to a 2012 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Report includes a recommendation of the Canadian Aids Legal Services Network that
police be specially trained to deal with this matter with sensitivity in regard to the impact on the accused individual in the media, when charges are laid and that “unnecessary” investigations not be pursued. This would place such
charged individuals in a special category in the reporting of this criminal offense;
9.In May, 2008, Parliament raised the age of consent from 14 years of age to 16 years of age and to 18 years where sexual activity exploits a young person. The Report, however, recommends that police develop “training” on this issue because lower courts between 1995 and 1998 had struck down the legal age of consent in regard to homosexual acts. This recommendation implies that the age of consent for homosexual youths not be enforced.
The Report finds offensive the fact that the police raided a number of Toronto bath houses in 1981 and that it raided a lesbian only bath house in 2002 called the “Pussy Palace” by five male officers (as though the gender should be an issue when carrying out official duties). These raids were in accordance with s.197 and s.210 of the Criminal Code which prohibits the operation of a place for the “practice of acts of indecency”. Apparently the LGBTQ Community does not wish to have provisions of the Criminal Code enforced against them, but prefer to be in a privileged position, apparently to carry out their lifestyle without police intervention despite the fact that their actions are contrary to the Criminal Code.
Finally, the Report includes many references to the fact that the LGBTQ Community have a right to be an active part of the police services, and be consulted in any matter involving them. That is, yet again, a demand for special rights and privileges not available to others.
Conclusion
If the police forces implement these recommendations, it places the LGBTQ Community in a special privileged position in regard to the application of the law.
Source: REAL Women of Canada