Where are non-binary and intersex prisoners kept? I have been racking my brain trying to figure this out. When a non-binary character has to be imprisoned, how is the correctional facility determined since most if not all are binary? My particular interest is on intersex, genderfluid, and agender with genderfluid being able to fluctuate between different gender expressions.
In the US, the question of gender and facility-assignment depends on whose prison it is – federal, vs. a specific state. There may be a specific policy adopted by a particular prison system, but there is no specific statute that generally requires segregation of prisoners based on gender. Policies will exist which protect a prisoner's 8th amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment: subjecting a person to repeated violence would be a kind of cruel and unusual punishment. At the federal level, the Prison Rape Elimination Act was designed to eliminate rape in prisons (which was already illegal). The act mandates a zero-tolerance policy, and enables studies of the problem – it does not further distinguish gender categories and/or parameters of sexual orientation. Specific policies are highly variable between states and the federal system. In theory, a state could mandate separate prisons according to birth gender, current gender and sexual preference (or, wings within a facility). I don't know of any system that specially segregates bisexual inmates from mono-sexual ones (etc.). There federal policy on transgender prisoners is explained here. The main policy of relevance is that prisoners are assigned based on their biological sex. Prior policy applied to Transgender individuals, defined as the state of one’s gender identity not matching one’s biological sex. For the purposes of this policy, a transgender inmate is one who has met with a Bureau of Prisonspsychologist and signed the form indicating consent to be identified within the agency as transgender. This step allows for accommodations to be considered That version did not say what "biological sex" is. Under current policy, the facility shall decid[e] the facility assignment for a transgender or intersex inmate, the TEC [Transgender Executive Council] should make the following assessments on a case-by-case basis: followed by, first: use biological sex as the initial determination for designation. Nothing addresses the former Intersex category, and I can find no explicit statements about what rules they use. This article makes some recommendations about this matter (suggesting making an official rule), but that's a desideratum and not the law, and it does not suggest that there is a known policy pursued by the purported TEC (whose actual existence is very hard to verify).
It depends on the jurisdiction but, very broadly speaking, the person might be ill such that: they did not know what they were doing or that what they were doing was wrong (insanity) their ability to understand their actions or make a reasoned decision or self control was highly impaired but not to the degree of insanity (diminished responsibility or perhaps provocation) they were unconscious when they acted (automatism - e.g. an offence committed while 'sleep walking') Clearly they lack the same culpability as a person with "good mental health", who consciously committed a criminal offence, knowing it was wrong. That does not mean the ill person can 'get away with it'. Claiming diminished responsibility as a defence to a murder charge may mean the person will instead be tried for manslaughter, which is also punishable by imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances a court (and subsequent people in authority) might be persuaded that the person is so dangerous they must be indefinitely detained and treated without their consent. Doesn't this sort of allow psychiatrists to make up the law, because they can decide if something is considered a mental condition? Just because a psychiatrist comes along doesn't mean the court will do what the psychiatrist says is best - the court will hear both sides of the argument, establish the facts, interpret the law and deliver a verdict. Some people would argue that someone who would commit such crimes (such as rape) couldn't possibly be in their right mind. Certainly, but so far as I'm aware that defence is very rarely used and never successful.
The Department of Justice has a nice guide on each section of the Charter, including section 28. As @MichaelSeifert's comment says, section 15 did not come into effect until later to give government time to resolve possible conflicting laws. During this time, section 28 can still be used to ensure other Charter rights are enforced on a gender equal basis. During the period from 1982 until April 1985, section 28 was the only Charter guarantee of sexual equality. It has been said that this may be the main effect of that section. There is to date limited jurisprudence on section 28. It is also important to note that section 28 is for interpretation of the Charter, not other laws. It cannot be directly applied to other parts of the constitution, ordinary laws nor other actions of the government. 28 Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. Equally, section 15 cannot be used to challenge other parts of the constitution, it can only be used against laws and actions at a lower level (Adler v Ontario (AG), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609). The DOJ guide also describes this section as &quot;interpretive, confirmatory, and adjunctive&quot;, in other word, symbolic. Nothing wrong with this, laws, especially constitutional acts that are profoundly political, are often symbolic. It also helps to contextualize section 1 analysis that determines the extent of acceptable limitations on Charter rights. Additionally, in my opinion, a very important historic reason is the Persons case. Section 28 is reminiscent and affirmative of the results in the that case, which declared that &quot;persons&quot; in the Constitution included female persons. This is was not as obvious as we would think today, gender-neutral language on its face did not mean that the law was interpreted in a gender-neutral way. Not to mention, in French, masculine forms (the Charter uses chacun and &quot;tout citoyen canadien&quot; for example) are often used as the generic (nothing wrong with this since gender in French is grammatical). But the section affirms the generic value of the expressions for both sexes, similar to subsection 33(1) of the Interpretation Act or other places where you see things like &quot;masculine forms/pronouns has been used only for convenience and the rules apply equally to women.&quot;. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected women as &quot;qualified persons&quot; within the meaning of the Constitution for the purpose of appointing Senators; it was only because SCC was not Canada's final court at the time that the case succeeded in the British Privy Council. Notwithstanding clause As a compromise with the principle of parliamentary supremacy, section 33 of the Charter provides that (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15. [...] The legislatures cannot use the notwithstanding clause on other sections, e.g. democratic rights (sections 3-5), mobility rights (section 6) or language rights (sections 16-23). Section 28 is also not subject to a notwithstanding declaration, as such, it may mean that a government action notwithstanding other sections of the Charter nonetheless cannot violate sexual equality (but this question remain unsettled). This is one argument used to challenge the Quebec law on state secularism. The litigation is still ongoing, but the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec so far has disagreed with the preceding interpretation. The Superior Court deemed that once the legislature suspended the application of a Charter section, the rights in that section essentially are no longer guaranteed by the Charter and section 28 cannot be applied.
A private venue normally has discretion over who may attend their premises, as long as it is not because of membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Note that the communication, as quoted, did not say that the banned person was a threat, but only that one of the performers felt uncomfortable. I do not think that the banned person has any legal recourse, unless they can plausibly assert that this is a case of unlawful discrimination, which the question does not suggest.
I will assume B.C. as your specific jurisdiction: there could be provincial differences. As phoog says, you certainly may mention this problem to management, who have an interest in keeping you happy. No law against that. As for the "legality" of sexual harassment, the CBA BC branch says that "Sexual harassment, which is discrimination based on sex, is illegal under the BC Human Rights Code". It is interesting to see what the code actually says. Section 8 Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility says (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons. The question is whether using the term "babe" constitutes discrimination against a person regarding service because of sex. This article on the Law Society of BC web site specifically identifies "verbal harassment" as an instance: Verbal harassment – This comes from anyone within the firm and or other workplace or a person who does business with the firm or company. Some examples are: referring to an adult as a babe, honey, girl or stud; whistling at someone; turning work discussion to sexual topics; asking personal questions of a sexual nature; making sexual comments about a person’s clothing, anatomy or looks; or asking someone repeatedly for dates and refusing to take no for an answer. (emphasis added). In case you're thinking that maybe there's a difference in what the code says regarding services and what it says regarding employment, section 13 Discrimination in Employment says: (1) A person must not (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or (b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person. In other words, it is defined simply in terms of "discrimination", which means "making a distinction". It is known that unwanted sexual advances constitute illegal discrimination, see Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. [1989] 1 SCR 1252. The court found that Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job‑related consequences for the victims of the harassment. They did not, however, find that this is the only form of sexual discrimination (obviously, since it isn't). I can't point to case law indicating whether gender-biased expression are actionable, but that would be consistent with the letter of the law and "babe" is indeed an example cited in the Law Society article.
Here's what I had to do : After going through this harrowing phase, I thought I will post an update in case some one is in such a situation. The Northern Territory's Personal Violence Restraining Order act has a clause (section 21) which basically says if the applicant believes a third party knows the defendant's name then the applicant can request the court to order the third party(power, water, electoral roll, etc) to provide the name if the applicant has already made reasonable efforts in finding out the persons name and hasn't been able to. The third parties will only oblige to a court order. I am almost certain every state/territories' act (in Australia) will have such a clause. It was a challenge to get the court registry to accept the application as the front counter staff/supervisor/supervisor's supervisor were all unaware of this provision (to make an application for a PVRO but get the judge to first order the third party). I had to carry with me the act with the highlighted portion for them to read, analyse and consult with other court staff to even take my application in. At least in the NT there are community legal help services available for no fee and I highly recommend them.
"As we know non-adults aren't allow to carry weapons" This is not something that we know or an obvious point. It is also not obvious that a knife would qualify as a weapon for these purposes. This would not be true in most jurisdictions in the world. I have no idea what knife control laws look like in China or Taiwan. A reference to why you think that this is the case would be helpful. Even if there are laws banning possession of knives (i.e. carrying knives) when one is in public for use as a weapon, it would be very surprising to me if teens weren't allowed to possess knives in a kitchen, or a work site where a knife was a necessary tool. It would similarly surprise me if a teen working on a knife design in a craftsman's workshop would be illegal. What makes you think that any of these things are illegal in China or Taiwan? This might have been illegal in Japan in the 1600s when metal blades were highly regulated (this is one of the reasons that most Japanese food is served with portions pre-cut to be bite sized), but I very much doubt that teen possession of knives for practical purposes is illegal in any of those places today. There is also, in general, nothing wrong with factories run by adults making knifes from other people's designs. They do that all the time and it wouldn't be illegal to do so just because the designer wasn't allowed to use the product of the factory in public. I would be surprised if a factory even asked how old the designer was, particularly if he was operating through a company formed for him (something an adult might have to do). The harder question would be whether the teen can enter into an enforceable and valid contract with a factory without having the co-signature of a parent or guardian. Many countries don't allow this so that the teen is not exploited into agreeing to a big contract on unfair terms. Also, many countries make a distinction between criminal acts committed by adults and the same acts committed by minors. A teen, particularly a young teen, may be under the relevant law, capable of only engaging in juvenile delinquency, rather than an adult felony. But, again, I don't know how this is handled in Taiwan or China. In general, the legal system in Taiwan strongly resembles that of the legal systems in Continental Europe not long after World War II (i.e. in the 1940s), with its own local developments since then. But, China's legal system is quite unique and is not very similar to the common law legal systems of England and former or current English colonies, or the civil law legal system of Continental Europe (or for that matter, Islamic law). China's legal system is different at the level of very deep concepts of legal process, of what is and isn't law, and of many core legal concepts. It also has piecemeal bits that are imposed by treaty even though they are not organically natural fits with the rest of the Chinese legal system (e.g. its intellectual property laws).
The protection lies in the fact that these sorts of restrictions are expressed in state laws, and states are Constitutionally forbidden from denying to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or from interfering with religion. The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids states from making any law impeding free exercise of religion, or having the effect of establishing a state religion. This means that any law that forbids people of any religious denomination (including atheists) from holding any office (elected or not) under any level of government is unconstitutional. See Torcaso v. Watkins. Moreover, Title VII's protected classes are also (with the exception of sex) suspect classes under the Equal Protection Clause. A state or local government may not pass a law discriminating against a suspect class unless it is a narrowly tailored law which is the least intrusive way to achieve a compelling state interest. In practice, that means a state can't pass a law discriminating on the grounds of national origin, race, or religion. Sex is a quasi-suspect class; government discrimination on the grounds of sex must further an important state interest in a way reasonably related to that interest; again, in practice this will tend to rule out laws saying "no women can be elected to this post." The Americans with Disabilities Act actually does not exclude elected officials. It defines "employee" as "an individual employed by an employer." The Equal Pay Act doesn't apply to elected officials, but again, sex is a quasi-suspect class. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act also excludes elected officials, and this is the one case where a state really could discriminate -- the applicable test is whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, which is not an especially high bar.