i took a read through this bill, and it's kind of odd.
i initially interpreted it as some kind of weird omnibus bill and was wondering why there's a section of the law that allows the judge to seize material that is "obscene". that's rather overly broad. that would get struck down...
....but i looked into it more and realized that that's already the law, and what the bill does is add the line about conversion therapy. that means that ads for conversion therapy will be treated like child pornography or ads for escorts in canada, moving forward - odd considering that there was just a ruling in favour of advertising for sexual services.
i'm a civil libertarian, and my concerns about this are threefold:
(1) parents forcing this on kids should really be charged with child abuse. that's the right way to look at it. and, it's sort of what they did.
(1) parents forcing this on kids should really be charged with child abuse. that's the right way to look at it. and, it's sort of what they did.
(2) governments have done some pretty awful things on this front in the past. look up the case of the seminal scientist, alan turing, which was just horrifically egregious. something in the human rights code would be useful on that front.
(3) i couldn't imagine somebody losing a charter challenge on this, when it comes to advertising it for consenting adults. i might snicker. i might think it's horrible. but, it would clearly be a speech issue.
so, i guess i applaud the government for taking some steps on this, but i'm not sure banning the advertisements is likely to stand up....especially given some recent rulings.
and, it may signal that the government is looking to fight any court rulings decriminalizing advertising prostitution or escort services, which....i have two minds about this. that's a really hard issue. this is less hard, on it's face - but it's basically the same precedent, which is why they put it in the same place in the code.