By The Canadian Press
It’s funny he whines constantly about the legal ramifications of pronouns as hate speech (of which there are still none)… while his regular speech starts racking up legal ramifications.
I just want to point out that several conservative controlled jurisdictions in the USA are trying to control which pronouns teachers use for their students. I don’t think he has commented on these initiatives.
Well obviously. He’s not actually pro-free-speech. He’s simply anti-trans.
deleted by creator
he whines constantly about the legal ramifications of pronouns as hate speech (of which there are still none)
For the sake of accuracy:
As was passed in Bill C-16:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
And, as specifcied in the Canadian Criminal Code:
Public incitement of hatred 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
From all of this, the question now becomes whether or not there have been decisions made, or legal precedent set that applies this law to cover the misuse of pronouns. I have yet to find any cases of the application of Bill C-16 to criminalize the misuse of pronouns; however, there was a piece that the CBC put out which asked some of these questions. Some excerpts of note are as follows:
“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal’s order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that’s likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you’re looking at.”
All of this being said, this was just looking at it from a Federal perspective – the provinces, themselves, are a completely different story. For example, British Columbia’s Human Rights Code includes “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” in its protections from discrimination, and, in Ontario’s Human Rights Code, they also include “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression” in their list of protections from discrimination. There is a large body of precedent that I can find which ends in a successful lawsuit for misuse of pronouns. Just to name a few:
Yeah, I heard someone complain about this, and asked him where he’d heard of it, and he wouldn’t give me a good answer… I kinda knew it was this nonsense, but wanted to hear them say it out loud… Nope, too much of a coward to disclose the source of their hysteria.
Peterson says he stands behind statements
Yes, I’m sure he does.
For a guy who gives lectures about personal responsibility, he seems to have none.
He’s such a dork.
This isn’t about free speech, it’s about speech free from consequences. He is a member of a professional association which has rules. He agreed to those rules. He broke those rules. There were consequences.
It’s sad. I used to follow this guy a bit. The stuff he said made sense to me and seemed pretty decent. Personal responsibility, upholding important values, your role in society. He said good stuff all about self improvement as a way to attaining a good and happy life.
I don’t know if he just drank his own cool-aid for too long or what, but seeing this makes you realize that you can make anything that should be common sense goodness into some terrible things.
Uh, he literally became famous by spreading panicky fear about the bill C-16, the law that extended minority human rights protections to trans people. Nobody had heard of him before that and his most notable book was “maps of meaning” which is basically rambling.
I think he actually started his climb towards the spotlight by causing people to call for his expulsion as a professor at the University of Toronto for refusing to call a transgender student by their name and refusing to use their preferred pronouns. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the protest against him simply made him reach a wider audience with his hate speech.
Whichever way he came into the spotlight, those weren’t the things I saw of his interviews and lectures. While it was obvious he was at least a bit sexist, his talks about personal responsibility and bringing back the better parts of traditional values weren’t so bad.
I mean, stopping a divorce by making people make their marriage work by actually working on it? Not a crazy idea, yet not exactly something that is often said in the last few decades.
I think he’s addicted to the attention. The dumbest part of all is that he doesn’t need to bully or shit on other people to get attention – but that’s what reliably keeps him in the spotlight, so that’s what he does.
The whole ‘personal responsibility’ angle is a way to shit on poor people, addicts, immigrants, etc. The sad part being that he was a addict, and had the money to get treated privately, got treatment, and instead of it humbling him and leading him to realize that anyone can fall down the hole into substance abuse, he uses it to look down on people who need help and don’t have the money or assets to pay for that help out of pocket.
I have no idea why he cares about how the LGBTQ+ segment of society lives. What other people do with their junk is anyone else’s business, least of all him. It seems like him and his followers are afraid of being attracted to a person that don’t have the ‘correct’ genitals.
It really is sad that the way to get the most attention is through hate and resentment, not through care and joy.
I personally believe that personal responsibility is how to get yourself out of a hole and live a good life. The difference is that I would never say “you gotta pull yourself up by your shoelaces” but instead “you gotta teach a man to fish.”
You can’t save others. Not in any long term sense. But you can give others the means to save themselves. You don’t get someone out of addiction by just throwing money at them, but have them go through therapy, get them to figure out what’s wrong with them and what can be done to fix it, all the while supporting them emotionally so they don’t feel all alone while they struggle. Only then can they overcome their addiction (or poverty or isolation or whatever) and grow as a person and become responsible for themself.
Self responsibility is the result and how you keep what you’ve gained, not the means to cure life’s ails. Self responsibility is nothing but turning your nose when people are in a hole, because what they need isn’t to be lectured, but a hand reaching into that hole. It’s only when they have a grip on the lip of that hole that they can better themselves through personal responsibility. Not when they’re so deep that can’t even reach that ledge.
I know I’m a hypocrite for saying this stuff without actually doing anything to help anybody, but it’s far worse to just say shit and expect others to magically fix themselves, as all it does is make them feel worse for being unable to fix themselves when they shouldn’t be expected to. You don’t look down on a 5yo just because he can’t read.
You get the sense that Jordan is one of those people who would be profoundly upset if someone mistook him for a woman.
Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson seem to hang out together. As my mother said when you hang out with the dregs of society you will be all painted with the same brush. In this case it is unclear of which of the three is dragging the others down they are all despicable.
This is glorious.
