• [[Defamation#Online defamation|defamatory libel]] The anchor (#Online defamation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2019, between 6 May 2019 and 30 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 84rry883n50n, AlisterStepowski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdudle10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article Gay rights in Canada taken from part of article Gay rights Wuzzy 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was removed from the Category:Canadian law category on February 8, 2006.

I think that the article belongs in the Category:Canadian law category, among others, because most of the article is about amendments to laws, and interpretation of laws (ie caselaw). Also, a right is a legal concept. What do you think? Wuzzy 13:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more political than legal. Ardenn 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few concerns about this article:

Keep in mind, not all people agree that all aspects of increasing gay rights is inherently good. For example, it is the official policy of the Government of Canada to revisit the same-sex marriage issue. And Wikipedia is striving to avoid country-specific bias. Most African countries, all muslim countries, and half of the U.S. don't have this mindset in all aspects. Agreed that some aspects are universally accepted as inherently good.

In addition, it is becoming a bit of a rambling fact dump. I'm not sure it's shaping up as an encyclopedia article. By avoiding any discussion of the tension between gay rights and social conservative views, we are avoiding bigger picture issues entirely. That may be safer for us all (e.g., less arguments), but tough issues can be successfully tackled with a NPOV outcome on Wikipedia.

By quickly erasing my (I believe reasonable and modest) edits linking this issue to other rights (see Chris Kempling's plight) by calling them argumentative and obsolete, I think that is biased. Argumentative? Obsolete? I don't think my edits were either. Keep in mind, some of these issues will be debated (i.e., 'argued') in the House of Commons this session. Obsolete? Hate crime amendments are still being actively pursued by some. And my edits were trying to state facts. I am not looking to be argumentative in the article itself.

Much of the article is fact, which is not biased, except for the selection of facts presented, and the avoidance of topics that hint of dissention from the pro-gay rights theme.

--Deet 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

• This article does not say that all people think that all aspects of gay rights are Canada. Where is the article pro-gay rights?

• This article is about Canada. The situation in other countries is incidental. There is a separate article that deals with gay rights worldwide called Gay rights.
• Generally speaking, it is not rambling, nor a fact dump. It talks about the rights of LGBT people in Canada.
• On the contrary, the paragraph about the Kempling case was out of context, very specific and not about gay rights. It is precisely to avoid a fact dump that I deleted it. There is already an article about that case, and I referred to it. This article will indeed become a fact dump if every case has its own paragraph, especially if the case mostly concerns non-gays and are not analyzed as to their effect and how they fit into gay rights.
• Similarly, the sentence about some past objections to the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code were out of context, not about gay rights, and obsolete. The Criminal Code has already been amended, but a huge loophole was added for religious hate expression in response to those objections. Furthermore, for it to be in context, a section ealing with freedom of expression for gays would need to be created. I think its is a valid topic, but I have not gotten around to it, but it would deal primarily with the freedom of expesion for gays or lack therof, and only incidentally with freedom of religious expression.
• It does not interest me to add the arguments for and against gay rights as such articles are usually irrational, biased and nearly illegible, or else just boring weazel words about "some claim while others disagree". It would probably be a rehash of the US articles since the arguments and a few of the actors are the same. I find it a lot more useful and encyclopedic to talk about what the rights are and aren't legally; they are quite different from the US. However, it would be possible to add the pro-con arguments without deleting the useful content.

Wuzzy 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deet, your argument about trying to avoid country-specific bias is flawed. There are many articles that are country specific. Look at the Same-sex marriage articles for example, or List of universities in Australia. Ardenn 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even the introductory statement, "Canada has advanced dramatically in the fight for same-sex rights, exceeding many other liberal nations in laws and benefits directed towards same-sex couples and members of the trans communities." is clearly pro-gay. This use of "advanced" is clearly and arguably NPOV. Lexicographer, 29 May 2006

I have removed the disputed tag. User:deet seems to be non-NPOV when it comes to homossexuality which could be described by some as anti-gay based on an article he is part of called Religious Freedom in Canada. This article was heavily biased , and factually unverifiable. Im in the process of editing the srticle to meet wiki standards. If you visit the page please leave some comments, and also look at the orginal version of the page. I would also appreciate some insights from LGBT people on this issue DRCarroll 08:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your personal attack against me aside, the problem is that it was Lexicographer who put the tag in the article, not me, and you have not yet addressed his point. Deet 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack Deet ,i believe your biased towards from a religious view, a look at the older version of religious freedom in Canada holds an Anti-Gay bias DRCarroll 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everyone is finding your theories about me facinating. Why don't you, or one of the many others I know watch this page, try addressing Lexicographer's point. Deet 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in the "Gay rights in Canada" template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag.

Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this article focuses primarily on legal rights. While these are important, we should probably mention social attitudes, as does Gay rights in Spain and other articles in the series. Unfortunately I don't know where to start looking for sources, although books such as Pink Blood or Mort ou fif would be good places to look for the negative side. - Montréalais 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence "Canada has provided more legal rights for LGBT people than many other liberal nations." is kind of bad, I think. It sounds way too subjective (how many is many?). Maybe it should be changed to something along the lines of "...is one of the forerunners in LGBT rights in the world." or the less sensational "Canada provides significant legal rights for LGBT people." --69.159.228.177 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first suggestion has a pro-LGBT bias. The second sentence I can live with but it suffers from the same issue you raised in the original article wording (how is "significant" defined?). I think the current article lead is accurate to all sides regardless of what view one has on the topic, and it has stood the test of time for a while. Deet 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more on the pre-1967 period. For example, what exactly did the criminal code prohibit? Was it specifically male-male sexual contact that was criminalized, or lesbian sex as well? And how was it defined in the legislation and interpreted by courts? I did a brief Internet search but could not find the text of the pre-1969 Criminal Code. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From another article (LGBT adoption), it would seem that adoption and parenting rights vary from state to state. Seems like it would be worthwhile to add a section about this rather important aspect. Perhaps a knowledgeable Canadian can assist? Ikzing (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At LGBT rights in Canada#Same-sex marriage it says "By July 2005, same-sex marriages were legally recognized in all provinces and territories except Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and Nunavut,..." but at Same-sex marriage in Canada#Same-sex marriage by province it says "20 July 2005 (Civil Marriage Act): Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut territory, and the Northwest Territories". Now I realise that this article could mean as of July 1 but I think that the most common reading of "By July 2005,..." is that it refers to 30 July. something lame from CBW 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Living Conditions table, the row: MSMs allowed to donate blood: Yes But after a 5-year deferral

It's not a "deferral". It's 5 years of no sex with men. A man who does not have sex with men for 5 years can't reasonably be described as MSM. This should still be marked with an X for "no".24.57.218.21 (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I aplogize if my formatting is wrong. Just adding in here, LGBTS in Canada have significant problems in both organ donation and blood donation in Canada. CELIBATE gay men can donate blood (if celebrate for 5 years or more), but since this restricts most gay men, I do not believe this category should get the green check mark. I have added a reference. 174.5.163.20 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.queerty.com/gay-mans-donated-organs-rejected-20130412

I don't understand what you mean by "Only after a 5-year deferral".

Could you please make it more clear? Are homosexuals allowed to donate blood, or not?

--83.130.107.195 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the table that describes whether trans sexuality has been taken off of the DSM, should it be trans sexual or trans gender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.25.94 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.71.119.188, can you please explain your intent behind this edit, where you changed the section title to #Hate propaganda and like minds? I don't understand. (Leaving you a message at your talk page pointing you here. Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange! Not in the source. Can delete or rewrite? -- Флаттершай (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for coming back with your comment. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changed "prominent" to "extensive"; there are now sources in the lead that provide comparative background; "extensive" is a better descriptor for the wide range of LGBT rights in Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tick and cross marks from the article. The documentation for both of these marks is that they are not to be used for articles. See Template:Tick: "This template inserts an inline green tick or check (✓) image, indicating agreement (or other affirmatives: acceptance, completion, etc.). It is not for use in articles." See also Template:Xmark: "This template inserts an inline red diagonal cross (X) image, indicating negation (or some other negatory message: rejection, failure, etc.). It is not for use in articles." The reason why these symbols are not to be used in articles is apparent from these comments: the green check mark indicates agreement, while the red X indicates rejection. Neither of these are consistent with NPOV, which is required for articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also went to check the Accessibility guidelines to see if the green check mark and the red X mark are consistent with Accessibility. It looks like they are, since the two symbols are used extensively in the article: to indicate approval for certain practices/formatting, and disapproval for other practices/formatting: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. That usage on a Style page highlights the concern which I have: these marks have a non-neutral symbolism, are used in a non-neutral way, and therefore are not consistent with NPOV. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to change tick and cross from this article (LGBT rights in Canada) then you should also remove tick and cross from all LGBT rights articles like USA, india, new Zealand, Australia, china etc. So that all articles appear in a similar way Rex30 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the "Guardian of the Wikipedia", responsible for consistency in all articles. For one thing, I don't know enough. :) However, this article was using those marks contrary with the directions in the template documentation, and in a way that is not consistent with NPOV, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Using marks that are designed to show approval ("indicating agreement (or other affirmatives: acceptance, completion, etc.)", on the one hand, and disapproval ("indicating negation (or some other negatory message: rejection, failure, etc.)"), on the other, is not consistent with the NPOV duty to avoid advocacy. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not taking responsibility of your actions then why the hell do you changed it in the first place You know now its hard to recognize what's yes or no it'll be better if the page is just like any other page of lgbt rights so do that or chabge every other page like that one Rex30 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make every page like that one or just undo that page so that it can be like other normal pages And If you don't take responsibility then don't take I am here to edit this page you don't have to worry about updating content on this page I just wanted to say just don't spoil it if you don't wanted to make it right Rex30 (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of pages to fix full of ticks not to be used in article namespace. Its really too bab all these articles dont work for anyone with accsibilty problems. Let alone meaning is not yes/no.Moxy- 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-inserted the section on provincial and territorial hate speech restrictions in the Summary table. For the details, see the section in the article: "Hate speech and propaganda : Provincial laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/key/LGBT_rights_in_Canada#Provincial_and_territorial_laws_2 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here on the homosexuality detection device used to avoid hiring undesirables into the rcmp until the mid 80s? Or about that horrible taskforce that worked to remove suspected gay people from office up until the late 90's? Seriously, this reads like a tourism ad. 170.10.253.226 (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon this phrase in the "Constitutional Framework" section, and found it a little surprising.

In addition, "the Supreme Court identified a number of interests as significant within the context of section 15", namely "access to homosexual erotica for gay and lesbian culture".

I went to check the citation that immediately follows, but the cited page doesn't seem to contain any text relating to the claim? A quick CTRL-F for any portions of this quote doesn't turn up any related results. I could just be failing to read correctly but it'd probably help to link to a specific heading or something if it's simply just buried.

173.31.53.74 (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. My guess is that the wording of that Charterpedia article has been modified since the quotation. It's a perpetual work in progress from the federal Justice Department and gets updated as the cases come out. The reference to gay and lesbian erotica probably was a reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), which does refer to a finding by the trial judge that "access to homosexual erotica was central to gay and lesbian culture " (para. 122). However, since the majority decision doesn't appear to adopt that, and it's no longer in the Charterpedia, I think it's best just to delete that sentence, since it's no longer sourced and doesn't come directly from Little Sisters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to add as much as possible to the Summary Table starting a couple of months ago. It was a painstaking job to find as much as I could. I based it on the United States summary table. However out of nowhere someone went in and starting removing content and also stated that I committed vandalism by adding the additional info to the summary table. This individual's IP address is very long and he does not have a user name. I felt saddened that he did this. So what I am asking for is that in the future when we all decide to do any changes to the summary table we should try and do so in a mature and polite manner and and in doing so act like adults and not as kids. If it is felt that something should be discussed on the talkpage because something is in error or not factual than lets do that for transparency. Thank you tom950. Tom950 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]