WDI BC Political Candidate Survey Results: Fringe parties

Responses from the Communist Party, Freedom Party of BC, Libertarian Party, and Christian Heritage Party.

The first installment of responses to Women’s Declaration International Canada (BC/Yukon chapter) survey of political candidates in BC focuses on the fringe parties. (To refresh your memory on the questions and format of the survey, please see this earlier post.) Using the term “fringe party” is not a value statement but rather qualifies these parties as having very few candidates running and being focused on certain issues which would likely appeal to a small proportion of voters. The ability of these smaller parties to participate in the election processes is important to democratic freedom and allows for the dial to be pushed on key issues. The fringe parties participating in the 2024 election are the Communist Party, the Freedom Party of BC, the Libertarian Party, and the Christian Heritage Party.

Feedback from candidates running for these parties was surprising in some ways and predictable in others. Because each party is running at most a few candidates, I have not included names associated with specific responses. However, if there is interest in understanding specifically who provided responses, please direct message me. Here is a rundown on how the various parties responded by theme:

Sex is Binary

The WDI survey asserted that sex is binary and asked candidates to agree or disagree and provide an explanation. The strongest opinion against sex being binary came from the Communist Party (CP). According to the CP, sex is “assigned at birth” and is a “patriarchal construction”. The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) was a surprising mix, with one candidate stating clearly that sex is binary and the other stating that based on their understanding, sometimes individuals are born with a mix of sex organs suggesting that sex isn’t strictly binary and that there is an element of the male/female binary which is forced upon people. This interpretation is a common misunderstanding of intersex or Difference of Sexual Development (DSD) conditions. It should be noted however that an official party position provided by the CHP states that sex is binary. The Freedom Part of BC (FPBC) and the Libertarian Party (LP) both stated unequivocally that sex is binary.

Gender Identity as a Protected Characteristic Under the BC Human Rights Code

Candidates were given the question of whether gender identity, as a self-image characteristic, should be included in the BC Human Rights Code (BC HRC). The inclusion of gender identity has caused significant confusion legally, providing those claiming a unique gender identity with rights granted based on sex. Additionally, gender identity is, according to the BC Human Rights Tribunal website, something that is fluid or permanent. WDI asserts that a potentially impermanent characteristic based entirely on self-image does not meet thresholds for discrimination such as ethnicity or sex, which are observable. While one would always have the freedom to believe they have a gender identity as a freedom of belief protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, once it is a protected characteristic, society is then obligated to recognize and validate. Two questions were asked around this issue, both whether it should be protected due to its weakness as a characteristic, as well whether it is fair that the inclusion of gender identity create legal confusion over freedom of speech in using correct sex pronouns and terms of men or women.

CP argued that gender identity was not a question of self-image and must be included in order to combat transphobia. Among CHP candidates, one seemed more inclined to keep gender identity in the code because one could argue that race is also difficult to observe or measure. This understanding may be an issue of insufficient explanation in the question. The other CHP candidate response however was not in favour of including gender identity as the purported self-image would be false and unaligned with sexed reality. The FPBC did not believe that gender identity should be included because as a self-identified characteristic, it could change day to day. The LP asserted that the BC HRC has “disgraced itself throughout the years and should not be taken seriously”.

In regards to potential legal confusion around the use of wrong-sex pronouns and use of terms “women/men” and “boys/girls”, responses were actually more nuanced. This may reflect the present-day pervasiveness of pronoun identification and the constant assertion that in order to be kind and respectful we must use preferred pronouns. The CP argues that not using preferred pronouns would be discriminatory. The LP states that using preferred pronouns is being kind and respectful but that not using them should never be considered hate speech and should not be compelled. Similarly, FPBC suggests that preferred pronoun use depends on the context. CHP was the firmest in their opposition, stating that “Nobody (male or female) should be forced to pretend and use language which doesn’t line up with reality”.

Single Sex Spaces and Services

Four different questions were asked regarding single sex spaces, services, and opportunities being reserved for girls and women. The first was in regards to women’s rights to single sex bathrooms, locker rooms, services, and events. The second referred to diversion of resources away from women by including trans-identified males into programs and services reserved for women such as rehabilitation centre, detox centres, or shelters. Candidates were also asked about the inclusion of trans-identified boys and men into girls and women sports. The last question asked whether it was appropriate for trans-identified men to be housed in women’s prisons. As the answers for each party generally align, these are addressed together here. Not all candidates/parties responded to all questions.

For the CP, responses generally assert that any exclusion is discriminatory, based on the fact that “trans women are women”. The references provided attempting to demonstrate the negative consequences of housing men in women’s prisons were insufficient to convince the CP that there was any problem with this policy.

The CHP mostly supported sex separation for certain services, spaces where privacy is important, and sports. This is also the party’s official position. On prisons however, one candidate suggested that there should not be any assault in prisons and that trans individuals should be protected as well, without addressing the issue of trans-identifying men cohabitating with women. However, the other response was clear that this should not be permitted, no matter what the circumstances.

The FPBC candidate provided an excellent, logical response on the question of separate spaces for men and women which I will share in its entirety:

Yes, women and girls should have protection for sex-based separate spaces because one needs to feel safe and secure in their environment. If males are given their separate spaces and they are not expected to share, then why are women expected to sacrifice their spaces? Why are women being marginalized again? It is better to have three separate spaces, one for women, one for males, and one for transgender. If transgenders are given separate space from males for their safety and privacy, then biological born women should have their own separate space for themselves for the same reasons.

On all other separate sex questions FPBC was also clear that women should not lose out on services, should not be put in danger in prisons, and should not be forced to compete against men who can easily overpower women in most sports.

The LP had a slightly more nuanced view of separate sex spaces, particularly change rooms and washrooms. For this candidate it was more an issue of the language being clear that the spaces are for females only. The issue being that the term “women” has become muddied, leading to women not trusting who is allowed to enter and who isn’t. While this might clear it up for some, even the term “female” is frequently used by trans-identified men who insist that they are not only women, but female. In reality, the two terms are indivisible, women simply being the term for adult females. On all other responses the LP was firm that sexes should be kept separate both for safety and fairness.

Parting Comments

The Communist Party has views which align most closely with those touted by the New Democratic Party (NDP), and even the currently inactive BC United party. The CP views rights for women as oppression for trans individuals, a modern cultural Marxist sentiment. These views are also held, at least officially, by universities, government agencies, and any social justice-minded non-governmental organization or company. However, we know that these views aren’t really dominant among the Canadian population, as indicated by an Angus Reid poll conducted in 2023. While a few of the stances held by the other fringe parties are sympathetic to the current official philosophy, particularly around using preferred pronouns and the inclusion of gender identity in the BC HRC, the majority of the responses indicate what could only be described as common sense. Services, spaces, sports, and prisons should all be made separate again for safety, privacy, and fairness.

We thank party representatives for responding to the survey.