Juno News - May 07, 2020


Conservative MP Garnett Genuis on Liberal ＂conversion therapy＂ ban


Episode Stats

Length

16 minutes

Words per Minute

165.10141

Word Count

2,719

Sentence Count

116

Hate Speech Sentences

1


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Welcome back to the Andrew Lawton Show here on True North as we talk about what life is going
00:00:13.200 to look like after the pandemic. We also have to look at what some of the things on the political
00:00:18.300 agenda were for Canada prior to the lockdown and which of these may come back. And one that I saw
00:00:24.380 a lot of headlines about and a lot of outrage about, and frankly, I hadn't looked into it too
00:00:29.340 deeply because there were other things going on that I was focused on, is a ban from the federal
00:00:34.260 liberals on conversion therapy. And we know that conversion therapy has a very dark history. People
00:00:39.140 that are forcing or have historically forced those who are gay or have a sexual orientation other than
00:00:45.600 being straight into compliance with being straight if that's not who they are. And it's very terrible
00:00:52.380 that this has happened, but that isn't what's being banned in this legislation. And if you look at the
00:00:57.520 fine print, you see, as the old saying goes, that the devil is in the details. So I want to talk
00:01:01.780 about this with MP Garnet Jenis, who has written a great piece in the Epoch Times about it. Conversion
00:01:07.740 therapy bill could have far-reaching and unexpected consequences. The Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan
00:01:13.300 MP joins me on the line now. Garnet, good to talk to you. Thanks very much for your time.
00:01:17.640 Great to be here, Andrew, and thank you for the opportunity. Hope you're doing okay under the
00:01:20.920 quarantine conditions here. Yes, likewise. The bill that is really at stake here, I find to be
00:01:27.820 very interesting. And I mentioned to my listeners earlier, I hadn't really looked too much in depth
00:01:32.600 at it because I think like most Canadians, when they hear conversion therapy, they have a vision
00:01:36.800 in their mind of what that is and they're against it. And you've raised a number of scenarios that I'll
00:01:41.940 get to here, but this isn't actually about conversion therapy, at least insofar as how people define
00:01:48.020 that term in their minds. Yeah, let's just hit this very clearly off the top so there's no ambiguity.
00:01:54.120 And all of your viewers, I'm sure, would agree with this. Conversion therapy is bad and we're
00:02:02.520 against it. And it's legitimate for the state to take action on it, as long as we are understanding
00:02:09.800 what we mean by conversion therapy when we say that. There's this history around using abuse,
00:02:15.560 violence, degrading treatment to try and compel people to change their sexual orientation.
00:02:23.260 Not only is that ineffective, not only did it not work, but it's contrary to human dignity,
00:02:30.060 to grading treatment, violence, bullying in any kinds of context. What I'm concerned about is that
00:02:42.880 this legislation actually uses a definition for conversion therapy, which is so broad as to be
00:02:51.020 at certain points incorrect and would call conversion therapy things that I think everybody would accept
00:02:58.280 are not conversion therapy. The definition is expansive such that it includes efforts to
00:03:04.880 reduce a person's sexual attraction or behavior. So if a parent, if a mentor were to say to a 16-year-old
00:03:18.200 or a 14-year-old, maybe you should wait until you're a bit older before you become sexually active,
00:03:24.840 or maybe you should dial back a particular relationship, maybe you should not be behaving
00:03:35.220 in certain contexts at a certain age in a way, that that, as an effort to reduce sexual attraction or
00:03:44.460 behavior, could be read into this law as being conversion therapy. The interesting thing is that
00:03:50.440 you know, the communications around the release of the bill, the government said it doesn't include
00:03:55.900 private conversations, it doesn't include all these things they said it doesn't include
00:03:59.380 in the legislation. The text of the bill itself, not the accompanying communication, but the text of
00:04:05.860 the bill itself, which is what would become law, doesn't contain those exceptions. So, you know,
00:04:12.640 we're all against conversion therapy, but there's, I think, a need to understand and amend and fix the
00:04:19.320 definition here. If the definition isn't fair, it leaves the door wide open for parenting
00:04:26.120 conversations, for casual discussions, as well as, you know, legitimate things that parents might say
00:04:31.900 to their children to be perversely read into the definition. Yeah, and there's actually a petition
00:04:38.340 that you link to in the article, which has, as you just note, fixthedefinition.ca, and we'll put that up
00:04:43.740 on the screen there for people to see it. Fix the definition. So is it just a matter in your mind
00:04:48.800 of wanting this bill clarified and that definition fixed, or is it that you think the bill itself
00:04:53.080 should be scrapped? Well, I think the definition is the issue. I would be very happy to support
00:05:02.660 legislation which clearly addresses the issue of conversion therapy, as everybody, or I think as
00:05:11.340 most people kind of understand the term to be, and as it comes from terrible practices. It's about the
00:05:18.020 definition. It's about the need to fix the definition. This should be an area on which there
00:05:23.680 is consensus. I think there is consensus. Maybe it's just sloppy legislative drafting, and we've seen
00:05:30.040 various cases from this government of sort of trying to rush something out and not doing the
00:05:33.900 legislative drafting, right? Or maybe it's something more insidious. Maybe it's an effort to
00:05:38.880 use an expansive or incorrect definition to create a political wedge when really there's no need for
00:05:45.120 that. I mean, there's agreement on this, but I think there would also be agreement that parents
00:05:50.700 should be able to give instruction to their children about sexual behavior, that mentors,
00:05:57.080 that faith organizations can teach things about sexual behavior in a dignity-affirming way,
00:06:07.340 and that that shouldn't create sort of questions about legality.
00:06:12.980 Yeah, and I just want to rhyme off very quickly some of the situations you include here,
00:06:17.980 which I think fall outside of the parameters of that stereotypical and historic definition of
00:06:23.860 conversion therapy. You cite a 17-year-old who could be struggling with severe addiction to pornography,
00:06:29.200 and he enters a course of psychological counseling to manage that. So in that case,
00:06:34.520 it would be consensual seeking of treatment. And another one that we're seeing more commonly,
00:06:39.860 especially with a case out in BC, gender affirmation, a grandfather telling a six-year-old
00:06:45.060 girl who thinks she's a boy, no, you're a girl, there are girls and boys. So these are not even cases
00:06:50.400 of therapies that would be a foul of the law. These are private conversations. And you're saying that
00:06:55.520 when the liberals have promised those are not included in the bill, they actually are.
00:07:01.600 Yeah, and I mean, I will say, I think the definition is ambiguous, right? And the concern is,
00:07:07.880 you know, I think probably some of these situations would run afoul of the law as it's written.
00:07:12.680 But there's also a chilling effect where if it's ambiguous, you know, am I allowed to say this to
00:07:17.420 my child or not, that creates, you know, potential issues when you're trying to have these conversations.
00:07:24.260 And, you know, whatever you might think of the choices of parents in some of these situations,
00:07:29.700 you know, I think these raise real issues, you know, the pornography example, right? We know that
00:07:35.840 younger and younger children are being exposed to sometimes very violent pornographic images on
00:07:44.240 the internet. And, you know, counselling around what some of the effects of those things may be
00:07:51.380 is an important thing for us to be thinking about. If you have 12 and 13-year-old boys that are seeing
00:07:59.600 violent sexual images, and they need to kind of think about sexual attraction and behavior and try to
00:08:06.080 kind of reorganize their thinking around some of those, obviously, that's very important.
00:08:10.920 You're right to point out as well, Andrew, that the legislation doesn't define this as sort of purely
00:08:18.440 in a therapeutic context, right? It includes any practice, right? I mean, what's a practice, right?
00:08:26.540 It very much could include private conversations, I think. And although the government's communications
00:08:33.000 said it doesn't include private conversations, there's no such exclusion in the legislation itself.
00:08:37.420 So if a group of friends are having a conversation about what they think about transgendered issues,
00:08:46.860 you know, I think whether people might agree or disagree with some of the things that are said in that
00:08:51.340 conversation, I think it's sort of common sense that the state shouldn't be policing the things people
00:08:55.480 might say to each other as friends in casual conversation about their views on gender identity.
00:09:00.580 And it stands to reason that someone going to, and I'd say especially someone going to,
00:09:05.540 some sort of a spiritual leader, a priest, a rabbi, a minister, that would be under the microscope under this.
00:09:12.420 You know, I think you hear some of the discourse, people promoting this idea that, you know,
00:09:19.120 we've got to clamp down on religious organizations, supposedly.
00:09:22.540 I do want to be clear, like, I don't think there is any religious organization,
00:09:27.600 certainly that I'm, no churches, mosques, synagogues, that want, I think you'd find general
00:09:38.440 agreement from faith communities as well, that conversion therapy as properly defined is unacceptable.
00:09:43.560 But yes, of course, in a religious context, there are also conversations about sexuality,
00:09:49.460 where people are saying, you know, you should conform your sexual behavior to ways that align
00:09:57.920 with the teachings of your faith. And if people don't like the messages they're receiving,
00:10:03.220 they're, of course, welcome to seek out spiritual fulfillment in the context of a different faith
00:10:09.300 community that has a different approach to these sexuality issues. But it would seem to be a big
00:10:14.500 overreach if the implication of this is that the state is saying that the faith communities can't
00:10:22.320 teach ideas about sexuality that may reflect their teachings, but may not be sort of in vogue with
00:10:29.160 the assumptions about sexual behavior in our modern society.
00:10:33.060 Douglas Murray, who's a great writer and author and a gay man himself, has said that his issue with
00:10:39.020 a lot of these conversion therapy bans that have been proposed elsewhere around the world,
00:10:42.860 not about this one specifically, is that they don't often allow for people that might have a
00:10:47.960 discomfort with something in their own life to seek it, even if it's completely voluntary.
00:10:52.300 And is that your reading of this bill that if someone and I'm not talking about a gay person
00:10:55.440 that is trying to turn straight, I think we've all agreed that that's not within the parameters of
00:11:00.560 what anyone in society should be advocating. But you know, should there be or is there under the
00:11:05.940 bill as it's written now, something that would allow someone who is personally interested in changing
00:11:11.520 an aspect of their life to seek out a service that does that? Or is that gone as well?
00:11:16.020 Well, there's this, as part of the definition, there's this kind of exception afterwards that
00:11:21.340 says it doesn't include people that are exploring aspects of their identity.
00:11:28.720 But there is sort of loaded ambiguity here that raises that question.
00:11:36.020 You know, people that are, and I've, in sort of thinking about this issue, I've talked in detail
00:11:44.960 with gay friends of mine, some of whom are involved in faith communities, some of whom are not at all.
00:11:53.660 And, you know, they would, I think, all agree that conversion therapy, as it's been historically
00:11:59.860 understood is, is deeply problematic. But that there are also issues with this definition.
00:12:06.360 And part of that issue is, you know, the liberty of people who are LGBT to have conversations
00:12:15.360 within their own, within their own faith communities, as they try and explore, explore
00:12:22.360 these aspects of their identity. I think we should be concerned about when people are subject to
00:12:28.460 bullying, degrading treatment. But if, if people are hearing sort of a range of different points
00:12:35.160 of view about, about sexuality, about theology, whatever the case may be, view in a, in a way
00:12:42.860 that's, you know, in a way that's respectful, that affirms their, their human dignity, it would
00:12:50.660 be, it would be strange for the state to say that, that they have to somehow protect people
00:12:54.880 from, from those kinds of conversations.
00:12:58.680 And of course, right now, the government is focused on anti-coronavirus approaches and
00:13:03.980 policies and all of these other things. So I know this is not front of mind right now, but
00:13:07.860 it will be coming back. And certainly, I think everyone can agree, we don't want bills that
00:13:11.940 are deliberately or unintentionally ambiguous. So the website with the petition, fixthedefinition.ca.
00:13:18.260 Just before I let you go, Garnet, I mean, what's your take on the return to Parliament plan
00:13:23.180 that we have now? I know that we've had Skyping in of parliamentarians for the first time in,
00:13:28.120 in Canadian history. Well, not Skype, but the, the parliamentary service. Do you think that
00:13:32.280 there is an effective way to get things done through the, the method that's been proposed
00:13:36.860 and implemented now?
00:13:39.000 Well, I, I think we should have more in-person sittings on Parliament Hill. We, we have one a week
00:13:46.380 and we're able to do that in a way that's, that's safe and practicing social distancing
00:13:53.220 in, in the chamber. And there, there's no public health reason why we couldn't have a few more of
00:13:59.820 those a week, given that, again, we're already doing one, one a week. And the government's approach
00:14:06.500 to this is, is quite inconsistent. They allege that, you know, oh, we got to keep people off
00:14:10.960 Parliament Hill because it's not safe. And then they send a whole bunch of ministers to the Hill
00:14:15.000 to do a, a press conference, uh, uh, in terms of the, the gun ban. It's like, it's, it's, uh,
00:14:20.400 it's, it's safe for ministers to come and, uh, announce sweeping orders in council. Uh, but it's
00:14:25.860 not safe for parliamentarians to come, more to ask them questions. So, uh, look, we, we, we need to,
00:14:34.600 uh, do everything we can to ensure that parliament is working during these challenging times. Uh, the
00:14:39.340 government is spending a lot of money. They're making expansive decisions. And I mean, part of
00:14:43.780 the reason why it's important to talk about C8 and fix the definition, uh, is the government has
00:14:49.620 shown us with their order and council on firearms, uh, that they are, are willing to, uh, aggressively
00:14:55.500 advance other aspects of their agenda and try to use the potential lack of scrutiny to do so. So
00:15:00.280 in addition to all the issues around the money spent in the, in the COVID-19 response, uh, there's a
00:15:04.920 question about advancing other, other aspects of, of, of their agenda. Um, Andrew, nobody thinks
00:15:09.840 that we should have 338 MPs in the chamber at once, uh, shoulder to shoulder. Uh, you know,
00:15:16.040 there, there, there's, there's no one proposing, uh, sort of a, a pure business as usual. Uh, we can,
00:15:23.360 we can, uh, find adaptations and we've, we've found them already. Uh, the, the, the, the digital
00:15:29.100 sitting so-called, uh, I don't think you could have a real virtual parliament that would actually
00:15:33.580 respect the rights and privileges of members. What we have right now is a little bit of a
00:15:37.720 workaround where it's, it's a special COVID-19 committee. It does some of the things that would
00:15:42.240 normally happen in the chamber, but it is formally a parliamentary committee, uh, which, which means
00:15:46.760 that there aren't some of the same limitations and requirements. Um, so, so, uh, and still there's
00:15:54.380 technical problems with that. So let's, let's, let's use the chamber more in person. That would be my,
00:15:59.160 uh, my suggestion. Yeah. I've seen how many ministers of the crown haven't actually been
00:16:04.360 able to unmute in TV interviews. So I wasn't optimistic in the virtual parliament going off
00:16:08.780 without a hitch just based on user error. So I appreciate that answer and appreciate your time
00:16:13.080 today. Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, MP Garnett Janis joining me on the line. Thanks so much,
00:16:17.460 Garnett. Good to talk to you as always. Thank you. Great to talk to you and your viewers as well.
00:16:20.820 Thanks for listening to the Andrew Lawton show. Support the program by donating to
00:16:24.500 True North at www.tnc.news.