In a reasonable age, this would be a reasonable law, as no one would take hitting on a woman in a bar as 'reasonably' calling offense, and it would be directed against the people who (like Muslims in Europe) call women whores on the streets and talk about how they would like to rape them.
But I would not exactly trust Canadian society on this.
Another example of how fake the idea of universal law is, without a unified national culture. There are many laws like this where the definitions of terms are entirely subjective and up to a judge to determine what a "reasonable person" believes. Another example is New York's law on gender identities and pronouns, which applies to government offices and I believe schools. It doesn't define what a gender identity is, but lets courts make a determination based on what all us reasonable people naturally understand. So you can demand the city identify you as Ze/Zie/Faerself/Spivak/Otherkin because obviously those are the "real" made up identities, but you wouldn't be allowed to identify as "Apache Helicopter" because a judge would say nobody believes that's a real gender. There's nothing written in the law saying that, it's just known.
Such nonsense is more pronounced when there is no longer a standard of what's reasonable either because your society is full of non-assimilating immigrants (Muslim refugees) or is in the midst of a cultural revolution. (wokism)
It's not a huge problem with homogenous nations but in divided and pluralistic nations justice no longer exists. There is only authority.
Correctly gendering.
Let's not indulge the fantasies of freakazoids.
In a reasonable age, this would be a reasonable law, as no one would take hitting on a woman in a bar as 'reasonably' calling offense, and it would be directed against the people who (like Muslims in Europe) call women whores on the streets and talk about how they would like to rape them.
But I would not exactly trust Canadian society on this.
Another example of how fake the idea of universal law is, without a unified national culture. There are many laws like this where the definitions of terms are entirely subjective and up to a judge to determine what a "reasonable person" believes. Another example is New York's law on gender identities and pronouns, which applies to government offices and I believe schools. It doesn't define what a gender identity is, but lets courts make a determination based on what all us reasonable people naturally understand. So you can demand the city identify you as Ze/Zie/Faerself/Spivak/Otherkin because obviously those are the "real" made up identities, but you wouldn't be allowed to identify as "Apache Helicopter" because a judge would say nobody believes that's a real gender. There's nothing written in the law saying that, it's just known.
Such nonsense is more pronounced when there is no longer a standard of what's reasonable either because your society is full of non-assimilating immigrants (Muslim refugees) or is in the midst of a cultural revolution. (wokism) It's not a huge problem with homogenous nations but in divided and pluralistic nations justice no longer exists. There is only authority.