Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a scholar's opinion on the application of the law, not the law. What courts make of it, and how they develop the law over time, cannot be concluded at this point.
And it goes on to say, a few lines below what you quoted:
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”
Time will tell... For the moment an arrestation over a trivial matter like this is a very big deal. Also the red guards are actively brigading here, elsewhere on the net and irl to impose their cultural revolution, in addition of hijacking the legal system, so the comparison with communist China is very apt.
Contempt of court is anything but minor. Violating a court order, in particular a gag order regarding an ongoing case, is a very serious offense. Casting it as a law banning speech in any way similar to what Beijing is doing in Hong Kong is dishonest.
This modern red gaurd you worry about is built on top of what social media enables, amplifies and rewards.
Two points worth making about "revolutions" built on top of social media -
1. They dont generate outcomes.
We now have 15 years of data on social medias bullshit revolutions that prove it. Best example would be what has happened in Tunisia or what outcomes that Hope and Change guy produced beyond getting himself a job at Netflix.
2. The clueless buffoon class behind social media algos of the last 15 years have finally woken up to their own cluelessness, so the algos are changing. Reward mechanisms are changing. What gets amplified is changing. Who gets thrown off the network is evolving. And even though all these changes are still in the realm of half baked shit, one thing they ensure is the type of "revolutions" and "revolutionaries" propped up over the last 15 year wont resemble what gets propped up in the next 15.
So I wouldnt loose too much sleep. Especially in Canada.
"The orders instruct him to not make public any information that would identify A.B., or the medical professionals involved, to call A.B. by the child’s preferred name and gender pronoun, and to not share his opinions of the case publicly."
"In June 2020, C.D. gave an interview to a YouTube channel, where he’s alleged to have identified health-care providers, revealed information about A.B.’s mental health, medical status or treatments, and gave out information that could reveal C.D., A.B. and the mother’s identity."
"“This order should not restrict C.D.’s right to express his opinion in his private communications with family, close friends and close advisors, provided none of these individuals is part of or connected with the media or any public forum, and provided C.D. obtain assurances from those with whom he shares information or views that they will not share that information with others,” the court said."
It sounds like his arrest is more due to him repeatedly discussing the case in public rather than the pronouns he used.
That's a specific court order involving a specific parent and a specific child. There are all sorts of idiosyncratic orders like that, not just in Canada but in the US.
From online source: "Bill C-16 does not allow for Canadian citizens to be jailed or fined simply for using the wrong gender pronoun when addressing a person.
Bill C-16 could lead to an organization having to pay damages to a person, but only if proof of a wider pattern of discrimination can be established."
