Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: The Canadian rule which bans transgender flight

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Does not appear to be”? According to who? That is very subjective and it all depends on what you are used to! It’s utterly ridiculous.

  2. What a thoroughly nasty piece of work. I can’t believe that a country as otherwise easy-going as Canada could even consider such discrimination, let alone put it into practice. This is institutionalizing and normalizing transphobia, as well as giving ridiculous powers to airport bullies with agendas. How long till we hear stories of trans and cis people alike being humiliated by strip searches and ‘proving’ their gender on the base of this hateful rule?

  3. Helen Wilson 31 Jan 2012, 12:23pm

    So if a man with log hair or jewellery that some right wing zealot considers feminine wants to fly in Canada he could well be refused!!!!!

    This has far wider implications

    1. Please read up on this before you comment on it. Cos u clearly havent read why the rules were put in place and how the enforcement will go!

      1. I had never heard of this regulation, but I suspect it has something to do with terrorism prevention and the wearing of clothing that conceals the faces.

        Still, it is odd that nobody saw this coming as transphobia.

  4. James Incer 31 Jan 2012, 12:57pm

    This article is seriously lacking in some crucial areas, and fails to provide context.

    There is:
    No analysis of the security issues around the rules.
    No analysis of how the rules are being implemented.
    No quote from the Canadian border force.
    No quote from the relevant Canadian minister.

    I am not saying that the rules are correct, but they should not be dismissed in such a one-sided way. Based on this article it is impossible to objectively judge the rules.

  5. It’s quite outrageous isn’t it?
    In the UK the trans community can get passports (and driving documents) in their new gender, pre-op, indeed all they need is a letter from a clinician (which could be their GP) confirming they are undergoing gender reassignment – even if it’s right at the start of the process.

    I am surprised the Canadians do not have similar arrangements in place.

    Face it, forcing people to travel with documents in a gender that is at odds with their presentation is setting them up to be harassed, even assaulted.

    The problem isn’t so much the new regulations (although they are odious), but a system that forces a transperson to complete medical gender reassignment before receiving gender-appropriate documentation, thus leaving such people in limbo and at risk.

  6. That’s twice Canada has screwed with non-heterosexuals recently, and again, with little mainstream comment.

    For them that’s wondering, the first one was to do with annulling gay marriages performed in Canada between non-Canadians.

    1. please don’t say “Canada” when referring to decisions taken by the ultra-right wing Conservative party of Canada and Stephen “Adolph” Harper, it’s leader.

      Canadians were outraged when the whole “foreigners’ gay marriages are not valid” thing came out. It was on ALL of the news networks, and it was a political “scandal”.

      The Conservative party of Canada has used this sort of subversion of the political process to pass their extreme right-wing agenda over and over. They bypass parliamentary debate, and insert these racist, sexist, everything-else-ist new rules and regulations.

      Stephen “Adolph” Harper has the ear of the most right wing extremist “Christian” groups in the country. As a matter of fact, Harper is one of those extremist christians who literally believes in “the Rapture”. Not as a symbolic thing, not as poetic allegory… he literally believes it will happen as a specific physical event.

      1. James Incer 31 Jan 2012, 2:53pm

        They didn’t annul the marriage, George. Try reading a newspaper before making uninformed comments.
        The Harper government, which Mikey clearly knows nothing about, is passing emergency legislation to close the loophole that was created by the last government which doubted the validity of the marriages.

        1. it’s sad that you wold say that I know nothing about my own government. Apparently, you don’t either.

          There was never a “loophole” in the marriage law. That was pure spin doctoring to cover up for a stupid government lawyer speaking out of turn on a subject he knew nothing about. Countless legal experts have chimed in on the discussion, and ALL agree: there was no loophole “left by the last government” or ANY other government for that fact. NO foreign marriage has ever been in danger, or in doubt. No provision of Canadian law AT ALL says that a marriage is not valid in Canada if it is not valid in the person’s home country.

          You should try fact checking before telling others they don’t know what they are talking about.

          And it would appear you take offense at my characterization of Harper and his christo-fascist conservatives? Are you a shill for the Conservative party?

      2. Canada sadly nolonger belongs to the majority of people.. due to our faulty electoral system and people that didnt feel like voting.. 30% of the country voted in a dictator with a mission of hate.. Canada is nolonger a country i am feel safe in nor am i proud of.. 4 more years of damage..

    2. The details of the whole marriage thing were also grossly distorted by the media. The federal lawyer said the marriages were annulled, not legislation or the government. It was just one mans opinion.

      The issue with the marriage thing was really about divorce. Gay or straight couples could not get divorced in Canada if they didn’t live here (This is an old legislation apparently designed to save money on court fees). Gay couples however couldn’t get divorced where they lived because their marriage wasn’t recognized there. So the real issue was gay divorce not being allowed, not gay marriage being annulled.

      That being said, I am by no means a fan of the current conservative government in Canada. And this issue with the airports is another reason why.

  7. Not that I am defending Harper and company, but this regulation was probably put in place with security in mind, to prevent any more tragic incidents like 9/11. Airline security comes first. Let’s just hope that airlines will make the necessary allowances for trans people whose gender marker may not match their appearance. So far, there have been no reports of anyone being banned — so it is incorrect to say that Canada is banning trans people from flying. That’s hysteria. Wait for clarification on this before you pass judgment.

    1. How will preventing transgender people from flying prevent terrorism (Because so many religious nutjobs are transgendered, clearly.)

      It seems like governments can get away with anything these days to prevent ‘terrorism’. It’s a clever policy – prey on people’s fears to attack society’s most vulnerable. Classy.

    2. There has been statements released from airports saying they will comply with this regulation and any passengers appearance who doesn’t match the gender marker will be banned from flying.

      Clearly the airports are interpreting this legislation the same was as everyone else.

  8. Oh I suspect this has something to do with some spurious anti-terrorism measure.

    And if it’s any comfort to those people affected by this regulation, bear in mind that ANYONE flying in North America (even passing through) has their details recorded by the US government for ‘security’ measures.

    This provision concerning trans folks is unncessary by the Canadian governnment, as the US will be spying on trans passengers as much as it spies on everyone else.

    ‘Security needs’ have really make a mockery of the notion that democracy stil exists (even though we’re all more likely to die in a traffic accident).

  9. The things Canada will do to just to keep Justin Bieber out.

  10. its far wider than a trans problem, though: this could affect anyone of any gender, depending on the mood of the border guard you are dealing with.

    As for the lack of comment from Canadian officials. This story broke around midnight last night…and i have since been in touch with the Canadian High Commission, who have referred me to the Canadian Ministry of Transport (who have only recently got up!) for comment.

    If/when they give some, it will no doubt be added.

    Meanwhile, Mr Incer, i think you need to think about what you are asking. If a country institutes an offensive piece of law, and that law is on the books, then the background to it is interesting, but not definitive when it comes to analysing what is going on.

    I don’t KNOW the security implications…but having worked closely with UK officials on same, i suspect that this sort of gender judgmentalism is not NEEDED.

  11. Whether anyone has been barred from flying or not is also interesting (and i will try to find out). Equally, though, its not terribly important, if a law is intrinsically nasty and discriminatory. Its the principle “thing”.

    I doubt i’ll get a quote from a Minister or Border Force…though I am trying. Watch this space.

    jane

  12. There is an awsome blogger Natalie Reed who writes for FreeThoughtsBlog, who has written more extensively on this subject. She has also included a petition link for all to sign.

    Check out FreeThoughtsBlog and Natalies writings below!

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/01/31/updated-canadian-aeronautics-act-permits-discrimination-against-transgender-passengers/#comment-803

      1. And would the faceless morons like to explain the thumbs down for including more information on this story?

  13. You guys are making all these comments, bashing canada, when you don’t even know what the rules were there for! I agree with James Incer on most of the things he said. You guys need to learn facts, before jumping the high horse.

  14. Krissie Pearse 31 Jan 2012, 6:18pm

    On the other hand, maybe it’s neither an accident, nor an act of spite. Maybe it’s pursuant to a socially conservative anti-LGBT agenda on the part of the current Canadian Government and it’s leaders?

    http://www.nomorelost.org/2012/01/31/a-case-of-bigotry-oh-canada-lgbt-people-the-new-terrorists/

    1. Krissie Pearse 31 Jan 2012, 6:20pm

      It’s not like there isn’t a pattern forming over the last year regarding LGBT rights in Canada, after all … and it does appear to all be related to this particular Government.

    2. that’s all very nice, but that blogger repeats an erroneous comment: that foreign same-sex marriages were “annulled”. They were not. NO marriages were annulled. If they HAD been, that lesbian couple wouldn’t have made headlines. They would have gotten the divorce they wanted.

      1. Krissie Pearse 31 Jan 2012, 6:41pm

        That blogger also read the source material from which the statement came. They made the headlines, according to the source, because when they filed for divorce they were informed that they were unable to do so owing to the fact that ther marriage, though under Canadian licence, was null and void. A significant number of sources mentioned the same thing. I know… because I’m the blogger… posting a link with an explanation was easier than writing out a whole article in the comments of another.

        1. kind of funny that every single news source IN Canada made it quite clear that no marriages were actually “nul and void”, that those were only the words of a single lawyer for the government who actually spoke out of turn.

  15. johnny33308 31 Jan 2012, 7:00pm

    Unbelievable….

  16. Mercedes Allen 31 Jan 2012, 9:34pm

    It’s too early to say for sure.

    We have to be careful about leveling the accusation that we’re “completely banned” from airlines, especially since we don’t know yet if that’s how this regulatory change will play out. It’s been around since July, there’s been no reports, and some of that can be explained by the delay in implementation, but we’ve not experienced a total ban — at least not yet. There is even a portion that could be interpreted as an intended exemption.

    It’s true that with the way it’s worded, it *appears* to be a ban. The wording is definitely concerning, especially because it would mean that if an airline allows someone to board with an incongruent gender marker, they’d be in violation of federal law. But we don’t know that the implementation will play out this way, yet.

  17. Ironic that this is touted as Canada’s contribution to the war on terror yet they conduct it by capitulation to the gender idealogy of the Taliban.

  18. Really people don’t you have something better to do? What happened to open and LGBT free Canada? Are they going to have to inspect our junk to fly now? Christians must be behind this somewhere in the wood pile in Canada. Who else is so worried about our junk and what we do with it when it is none of their business.

  19. The biggest lie in Canadian politics, the socalled named ‘Progressive Conservatives’! Why don’t they remove the ‘progressive’ part which is a total fabrication and just be plain ‘Conservative’!

    1. The federal “Progressive Conservatives” died 8 years ago with the merger of the PC’s and the Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform Party) when the merged party became the “Conservative Party of Canada”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Merger_agreement Since then, the PC’s (often referred to as “Red Tories”) have generally been purged from the Conservative Party as it becomes increasingly right wing.
      Some provincial parties have retained the Progressive Conservative name.

  20. PumpkinPie 1 Feb 2012, 2:40pm

    Well, I for one, think it’s an unnatural defilement. If God had intended for us to fly, he’d have given us wings! Ban all flights for everyone! Hail Jebus! ;)

  21. What an ignorant piece of mandate is this what the f are they thinking,, Will this crap ever stop

  22. Cat Howard 21 Feb 2012, 9:11am

    Transport Canada claimed this was in accordance with ICAO rules. If so, they should have read a little further in the rule book until they reached the rule that allows for identification that shows an “X” (for “unspecified” under gender. Although this change didn’t go through Parliament, it is yet again a case of the Harper Government picking and choosing whatever suits its purposes best.

  23. GTB FINANCE 19 May 2012, 6:41am

    GTB FINANCE Loan at 3% interest rate. Email us now with the below informations.

    FIRST INFORMATION’S NEEDED:
    NAME ……………..
    COUNTRY……………
    STATE……………..
    ADDRESS……………
    SEX……………….
    AMOUNT NEEDED………
    DURATION…………..
    PHONE NUMBER’S………

    Contact us via email below:

    Email: gtbfinance@postino.net
    Thank
    GTB FINANCE
    Email: gtbfinance@postino.net

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all