this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
14 points (85.0% liked)
British Columbia
1364 readers
14 users here now
News, highlights and more relating to this great province!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The point of contention is that people convicted of serious crimes can no longer legally change their name. These groups say that hurts transgender rights.
First, this has to affect almost nobody. The number of people convicted of serious crimes is already very low, the number of those who transition after committing such a crime has to be astronomically low.
Second, you committed a serious crime. The reason this law is being implemented is that a lot of people were trying to hide their past from a simple Google by legally changing their name. This is a common enough problem that the government is having to take action for it.
Nothing is stopping the small number of people impacted from using a different name in casual life, many people don't use their legal name outside of legal situations. So I don't really feel like this is a problem.
Right now in BC you don't require any proof at all to get your gender changed unless you're a minor under 12. You just fill out a form and pay a small fee and it's done.
Maybe the best option here is an exception that requires doctor approval via transitional care just to avoid felons doing it maliciously. It's a bit more of a burden, but it's not too difficult.
Serious crimes such as
*checks act*
trespassing at night
If you get charged for trespassing at night you didn't just walk onto private property, it's probably going along with some of the other charges like voyeurism or sexual assault.
Change my mind, if you fall under any of these charges you shouldn't get to legally change your name.
Go by a different name, sure whatever. But yeah your driver license gets to say your dead name. You fucked up.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe trespassing at night is being thrown around left right and center. But I doubt it.
A man in 2008 was charged for simply drunkenly jiggling a doorknob. Though he was acquitted, the court affirmed that "the Crown is not required to prove that the accused also had an intention to commit a specific evil act" in order to convict. In 2004 a man was sentenced to 30 days prison for trespassing at night during a crime spree in which he broke some windows and stole some cigarettes and beer.
This is a summary offence meaning it has a maximum penalty of two years less a day in jail (and thus would be in a provincial jail) or a $50 000 fine. There's no minimum penalty.