MLAs vote on Human Rights Code Repeal Act Thursday (Feb. 26). (Image Credit: BC Legislature)

By Alix Dolson on behalf of Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: KSACC disappointed at Kamloops MLAs’ vote to advance human rights code bill beyond first reading

Feb 27, 2026 | 4:51 PM

DEAR MLAs MILOBAR AND STAMER,

We are disappointed and angry to see you vote in support of hearing Tara Armstrong’s proposed “Human Rights Code Repeal Act.”

We recognize your vote was not necessarily a vote in favour of the proposed bill, and we have heard you say this is an effort to avoid the politicization of first readings and ensure the public sees bills. That logic makes sense for many bills proposed in the legislature, but this is not one of them. The public does not need to see this bill. Folks who rely on protection from the Human Rights Act do not need to hear yet another debate about whether or not they deserve that protection.

By attempting to treat human rights as apolitical and assume no harm could come from hearing this bill, you are exposing your significant amounts of unchecked privilege and are aligning with the side of oppression. You are not considering your disabled constituents, your Indigenous constituents, your 2SLGBTQIA+ constituents, your racialized constituents or your elderly constituents, to name a few. This was not a neutral vote. It indicates to constituents you are interested in hearing what MLA Armstrong had to say about repealing human rights in this province, and quite frankly, we cannot silently condone or support you as representatives of our communities with such a vote.

The Human Rights Act should not be a debate unless we are fighting to add protections or the systems that create marginalization and harm have been dismantled. When the intention is clearly to restrict, if not abolish, these crucial protections, we urge you to be courageous enough to break the mold and show that you are not interested in a discussion about repealing Human Rights. Like it or not, Human Rights are already politicized, and voting to allow a debate about repealing them is not the valiant or neutral move you may think it is.

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: KSACC disappointed at Kamloops MLAs' vote to advance human rights code bill beyond first reading

2h ago

TWO & OUT

PETERS: U.S. Olympic men's hockey team celebration was extremely political - whether players recognize it or not

6h ago

Looped in

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: February 26, 2026

Feb 27, 2026

To MLA Milobar, we are especially concerned with this vote considering your bid for party leadership. What you call apolitical is in fact a dog whistle to the extreme corners of your party, many of whom wish to see an abolishment of human rights protections. If your vision for B.C. as you “restore common sense, accountability and opportunity in our province” is to remove hard-won protections for your most vulnerable constituents, then we stand strongly in opposition to your leadership. That is not brave and accountable leadership – it’s partisan pandering. MLA Stamer, we note your support for MLA Milobar’s leadership bid. As much as we’d love to see a party leader – and even a premier – from the Interior, we cannot support this type of harmful political posturing.

We call for you to consider the impact of your legislative actions on the many vulnerable constituents who you are also responsible to serve. They are real people whose day-to-day lives are directly impacted by hatefully motivated partisan debates like these. While you cannot change your vote this time, you can take accountability and change your actions in future votes.

We hope we can rely on you moving forward to work for the betterment of all British Columbians, and in particular, for the most vulnerable members of our communities. If there are ways we can support you in better understanding the lived realities of your constituents facing multiple barriers and oppression, we would be happy to do so.

Respectfully,

Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre

——

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.