Did Jordan Peterson misrepresent C-16 to pimp himself as a martyr for free speech for personal gain ???
A comprehensive look at the evidence seems to point in that direction ...
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Mis-gendering is not a thing. I do think that there are people out there who are who may genuinely be transgender, but I think a large portion of this group suffer from gender dysphoria. Of this group, many chose to define themselves as gender non-binary, I believe this form of categorization to be entirely illegitimate as it is a non-scientific invention, that has no basis on reality. It is one thing for me to be able to chose out of courtesy to call a trans person their preferred pronoun on a case by case basis, be it masculine or feminine (him or her), thats fine. When it comes to non-binary pronouns, unless there is valid evidence from the science community that can turn their modern delusion into reality, I outright refuse to knowingly participate in helping construct an identity based in falsity.
The mere fact that if I reject to use non-binary pronouns the individual in question has the ammunition of calling me transphobic. This means our conversation is not an open dialogue, but coercion, as I am being compelled by social stigma. To go a step further now mis-gendering can have negative legal ramifications, now the conversation is coercion backed by the state, how lovely. Now I am forced to be nice, that is if you consider upholding someone else's false view of reality as nice. Who knew we would end up in an era of policing wrong-think like this?
Just goes to show, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Marcus_Aurelius
Level 7
Mar 15, 2019
2
What is presented there are opinions. I don’t agree with them and I support Dr. Peterson. Also he had no idea that he would become some sort of martyr. He was an unknown, obscure college professor in Canada. His refusal to comply and his objections could not have logically resulted in the present frame he has. I truly believe that he was following his conscience and his beliefs and had no reasonable expectation of fame, martyrdom or wealth.
Clammypollack
Level 7
Mar 14, 2019
3
No , the article is an opinion piece ... Those opinions are based the facts that were presented ... And yes, Peterson was unknown & would have remained so ... He's been trying to gain attention for decades ...
@BodhiJones777 Why do you feel that Dr. Peterson has been "trying to gain attention for decades" and why would that matter if he was? Also, I am curious. From your attitude in your posts it appears that you do not approve of Dr Peterson. If that is an accurate observation, why not? I am not asking in a judgmental way, you are entitled to your opinion, however I would really like to know your reasons.
@Farmergramma I was wondering the same.
"Comprehensive look."
Hobgoblin
Level 1
Mar 14, 2019
0
Correct ... Do some comprehensive research & stop back ...
Didn't read anything here that resembles evidence for this claim! I did however read how compelled speech could/ would be actionable in C- 16.That vagueness could have even worse ramifications by leaving it open to interpretation. Peterson said, however, that he examined the bill extensively.I have to believe that his conclusion was that, it does indeed,compell speach. He could just as easily have died on the hill that he took a stand on. There is no way he could have predicted the outcome.
Think
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
1
You read no such thing ... The Canadian Human Rights Act nor the Criminal Code mentions pronouns ...
Peterson lived under the same law for 5 years at the provincial level without a peep ... What does that tell you ???
The CBA refuted his bullshit ... What does that tell you ???
@BodhiJones777 Excuse me? And I quote (from the article you supplied) "Policy on Preventing Discrimination because of gender identity and expression states that gender harassment should include "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper pronoun" In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable through the Human Rights Tribunal and courts". Furthermore we now know that this bill passed and is indeed law. Have you personally read the entire bill? I find your comment on the absence of the word pronoun to be suspect! If that were the case then the whole thing would be a mute point and millions of people might never have heard of Jordan Peterson .
@Think Yes , I have read the bill ...
@Think What the article is referring to is repeated harassment ...
"/a narrowly confined offence which suffers from neither overbreadth nor vagueness/. the
provision possesses a stringent mens rea requirement, necessitating either an intent to
promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such, and is also strongly
supported by the conclusion that the meaning of the word ?hatred? is restricted to the most
severe and deeply-felt form of opprobrium. Additionally, however, the conclusion that s.
319(2) represents a minimal impairment of the freedom of expression gains credence
through the exclusion of private conversation from its scope, the need for the promotion of
hatred to focus upon an identifiable group and the presence of the s. 319(3) defences."
@BodhiJones777 Hmm? Sounds a little murky to me. If I'm reading it correctly, although the implication is that private conversation would be excluded, it sounds like said conversation could be interpreted by an outside source. Pretty vague and open to loopholes.
Dunno and don't care - b/c I'm not Canadian. Read through some of it, not once did it cite the words from the actual bill. Just made statements about what they interpret the sections to infer. Sorry, but I agree with others, this is not "a comprehensive look". Just this sentence in the piece raised red flags with me on it's validity, "it’s hard to see the refusal to use the appropriate pronoun –without something else – rising to the threshold of hate speech." Even if that is true, I know full well "something else" can be added on at the whim of some SJW government bureaucrat to squash opposition when needed once the law is on the books. It appears from the replies below, you have already made up your mind though. I have followed Dr. Peterson on and off, watched many of his videos, and he never seems to be a self grandstanding 'pimp', as you described him (wow - personal insults, never seen that tactic from the left). Yet this piece hosted on a Diversity Studies (insert eye roll here) should be taken without any thought about the mindset of the author, or the department?!? Yea - I'm still in the Peterson corner on this one - mental illness is not a right IMO.
jondspen
Level 6
Mar 14, 2019
2
I never claimed it was a comprehensive look ... It's a starting point ... There's also the fact that Peterson lived under the same law for 5 years at the provincial level without a peep ...
There's also the reality that no one has been arrested for misgendering anyone ...
And we also have the CBA refuting Peterson ...
1st) It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.
2nd) It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups...
- It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing...
The Canadian Human Rights Act nor the Criminal Code mentions pronouns ...
Given this set of facts , it appears you're in a camp with a phony martyr who pimps himself for the dollars of the unwashed masses ...
@BodhiJones777 I didn't bother reading all of your comments. I got to you denying you said it was a comprehensive look, when you said [quote] "A comprehensive look at the evidence seems to point in that direction ..." Leftist argument tactic #2 - gaslighting [en.wikipedia.org]
In what way is this opinion piece a "comprehensive look at the evidence"?
Farmergramma
Level 5
Mar 14, 2019
2
Well , opinion pieces consist of demonstrable facts that support an opinion ... And no one claimed the article was/ is a comprehensive piece ... You're using a very unlettered way to dismiss something you don't want to hear instead of addressing the facts laid out in the piece ...
Lets apply some of that intellectual honesty that the IDW prizes so much ...
The CBA's position is not an opinion piece ...
@BodhiJones777 You called it a comprehensive look at evidence in your own words, and then saying no one claimed it was comprehensive. Given that, it is rather difficult to call for intellectual honesty.
@Catherine No, I didn't ...
@Catherine Read it again ...
Did Jordan Peterson misrepresent C-16 to pimp himself as a martyr for free speech for personal gain ???
A comprehensive look at the evidence seems to point in that direction ...
@BodhiJones777 The CBA's position is exactly opinion and a biased opinion at that!
@BodhiJones777 I did not see many "demonstrable facts" in this piece. The writer used certain information to promote his view point. ( I have no issue with that) Dr. Peterson's viewpoint of the law is equally valid. The law is very open to interpretation. What exactly is "hate speech" under this law? Something someone feels offended about? Is actually stating reality and calling a male person "he" or a female person "she" hate speech? What if someone refused to use the pronouns at all - ever. Does this mean that refusal can be prosecuted? What if that person was fined and refused to pay the fine? Would his person and property then be in danger? Forced use of certain words is a very slippery slope to start sliding down. I am glad Dr. Peterson took a risk and brought this to the worlds attention.
Anecdotal evidence...
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Mar 14, 2019
2
Well no , it's not anecdotal ... There's the actual law & then there's actual statements Peterson made about it ...
There's also the fact that Peterson lived under the same law for 5 years at the provincial level without a peep ...
There's also the reality that no one has been arrested for misgendering anyone ...
And we also have the CBA refuting Peterson ...
Are you clear on what anecdotal evidence is ???
@BodhiJones777 Sure am, and that link appeared to contain opinions...
@SpikeTalon Opinions are not anecdotal evidence ... And the piece contains facts as well ...
@BodhiJones777 Opinions could be tied into such, and I'm not convinced any facts were presented there.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.