Did Canada âmandate the content of voluntary speechâ?
In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s)
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech.
Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?
law gender canada
 |Â
show 4 more comments
In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s)
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech.
Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?
law gender canada
5
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
5
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
5
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
3
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
3
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday
 |Â
show 4 more comments
In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s)
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech.
Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?
law gender canada
In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s)
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech.
Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?
law gender canada
law gender canada
edited 2 days ago
Oddthinkingâ¦
99.5k31414524
99.5k31414524
asked Dec 21 at 9:27
Evan Carroll
11.3k2674148
11.3k2674148
5
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
5
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
5
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
3
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
3
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday
 |Â
show 4 more comments
5
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
5
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
5
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
3
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
3
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday
5
5
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
5
5
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
5
5
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
3
3
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
3
3
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No, Peterson is wrong on all points
Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.
On to the claim...
The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.
The law that Peterson is talking about is...
Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes...
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.
So when Peterson says...
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...
...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender â such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice â or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.
So what about Common and English Law?
Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.
But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?
No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...
https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55
Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.
...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.
But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?
Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.
As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.
So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...
Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a personâÂÂs identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainantâÂÂs self-identification as a trans woman.
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person â any person â by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person â any person â then it may very well be discrimination...
...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.
A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).
What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...
These laws are the first laws that IâÂÂve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what theyâÂÂre allowed to say,
...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.
In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.
If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...
- Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)
- Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination
- A written apology
If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.
If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.
The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.
In conclusion
Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...
- Bill C-16 â which was the object of Peterson's claim â did not affect him
- The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour
- Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back
- This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment
- He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it
- It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University
- Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law
So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
 |Â
show 43 more comments
Yes (and no)
Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.
In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.
Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.
The claim by Peterson is two-fold.
First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes:
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.
Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.
Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1
Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ⦠will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.
Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3
Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4
Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it
A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:
- Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK
- this paper about physicians and abortion
NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that âÂÂrefusal to use a transgender employeeâÂÂs preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.âÂÂ)- A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Conclusion
I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.
New contributor
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
 |Â
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, Peterson is wrong on all points
Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.
On to the claim...
The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.
The law that Peterson is talking about is...
Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes...
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.
So when Peterson says...
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...
...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender â such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice â or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.
So what about Common and English Law?
Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.
But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?
No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...
https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55
Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.
...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.
But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?
Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.
As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.
So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...
Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a personâÂÂs identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainantâÂÂs self-identification as a trans woman.
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person â any person â by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person â any person â then it may very well be discrimination...
...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.
A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).
What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...
These laws are the first laws that IâÂÂve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what theyâÂÂre allowed to say,
...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.
In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.
If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...
- Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)
- Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination
- A written apology
If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.
If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.
The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.
In conclusion
Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...
- Bill C-16 â which was the object of Peterson's claim â did not affect him
- The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour
- Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back
- This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment
- He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it
- It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University
- Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law
So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
 |Â
show 43 more comments
No, Peterson is wrong on all points
Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.
On to the claim...
The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.
The law that Peterson is talking about is...
Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes...
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.
So when Peterson says...
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...
...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender â such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice â or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.
So what about Common and English Law?
Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.
But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?
No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...
https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55
Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.
...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.
But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?
Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.
As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.
So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...
Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a personâÂÂs identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainantâÂÂs self-identification as a trans woman.
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person â any person â by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person â any person â then it may very well be discrimination...
...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.
A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).
What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...
These laws are the first laws that IâÂÂve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what theyâÂÂre allowed to say,
...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.
In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.
If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...
- Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)
- Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination
- A written apology
If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.
If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.
The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.
In conclusion
Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...
- Bill C-16 â which was the object of Peterson's claim â did not affect him
- The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour
- Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back
- This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment
- He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it
- It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University
- Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law
So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
 |Â
show 43 more comments
No, Peterson is wrong on all points
Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.
On to the claim...
The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.
The law that Peterson is talking about is...
Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes...
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.
So when Peterson says...
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...
...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender â such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice â or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.
So what about Common and English Law?
Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.
But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?
No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...
https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55
Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.
...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.
But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?
Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.
As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.
So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...
Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a personâÂÂs identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainantâÂÂs self-identification as a trans woman.
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person â any person â by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person â any person â then it may very well be discrimination...
...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.
A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).
What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...
These laws are the first laws that IâÂÂve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what theyâÂÂre allowed to say,
...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.
In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.
If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...
- Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)
- Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination
- A written apology
If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.
If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.
The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.
In conclusion
Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...
- Bill C-16 â which was the object of Peterson's claim â did not affect him
- The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour
- Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back
- This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment
- He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it
- It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University
- Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law
So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.
No, Peterson is wrong on all points
Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.
On to the claim...
The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.
The law that Peterson is talking about is...
Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes...
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.
So when Peterson says...
The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...
...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender â such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice â or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.
So what about Common and English Law?
Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.
But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?
No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...
https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55
Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.
...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.
But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?
Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.
As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):
Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.
So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...
Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.
As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a personâÂÂs identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainantâÂÂs self-identification as a trans woman.
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person â any person â by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person â any person â then it may very well be discrimination...
...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.
A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do (unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).
What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...
These laws are the first laws that IâÂÂve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what theyâÂÂre allowed to say,
...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.
In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.
If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...
- Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)
- Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination
- A written apology
If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.
If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.
The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.
In conclusion
Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...
- Bill C-16 â which was the object of Peterson's claim â did not affect him
- The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour
- Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back
- This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment
- He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it
- It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University
- Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law
So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.
edited Dec 22 at 13:56
answered Dec 21 at 10:00
MichaelK
8,10233841
8,10233841
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
 |Â
show 43 more comments
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
10
10
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
Let's keep the discussion civil and non political. Also @MichaelK please make your answer politically neutral. There's no need to abuse bolds or snarkily commenting in a tilte this is "nothing new". Be civil.
â Sklivvzâ¦
Dec 22 at 6:44
13
13
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
The title is warranted and not snark because Peterson claimed Bill C-16 was something new. The title is a direct response to the claim.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 9:17
13
13
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
"English common law" is a perfectly reasonable phrase because common law arose in England. The Wikipedia pages you link to say "English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales" and "common lawâÂÂso named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across EnglandâÂÂoriginated in the practices of the courts of the English kings"
â phoog
Dec 22 at 11:42
11
11
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
So much contradictions. Half of it spirals around "new" which is part of the original sentence but not so much of the first question mark in the claim to investigate. Then you re-interpret the general legal system of Canada and assert things that your links do not prove and finally your last paragraph begins with "yes" (=JP is right) only to arrive non sequitur at "wrong on all points". The bill "adds to criminal code" and "prohibits bla"; if you cannot use Martian to refer to a legal citizen of Earth without punishment, then speech content is mandated?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:05
13
13
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
@MichaelK "English common law" denotes common law and makes reference to its English origin. English statutory law, for example is not included. It's no more ambiguous than "Japanese sushi" or "Hawaiian Hula."
â phoog
Dec 22 at 14:43
 |Â
show 43 more comments
Yes (and no)
Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.
In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.
Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.
The claim by Peterson is two-fold.
First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes:
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.
Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.
Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1
Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ⦠will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.
Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3
Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4
Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it
A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:
- Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK
- this paper about physicians and abortion
NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that âÂÂrefusal to use a transgender employeeâÂÂs preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.âÂÂ)- A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Conclusion
I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.
New contributor
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
 |Â
show 8 more comments
Yes (and no)
Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.
In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.
Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.
The claim by Peterson is two-fold.
First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes:
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.
Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.
Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1
Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ⦠will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.
Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3
Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4
Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it
A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:
- Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK
- this paper about physicians and abortion
NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that âÂÂrefusal to use a transgender employeeâÂÂs preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.âÂÂ)- A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Conclusion
I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.
New contributor
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
 |Â
show 8 more comments
Yes (and no)
Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.
In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.
Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.
The claim by Peterson is two-fold.
First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes:
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.
Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.
Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1
Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ⦠will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.
Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3
Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4
Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it
A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:
- Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK
- this paper about physicians and abortion
NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that âÂÂrefusal to use a transgender employeeâÂÂs preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.âÂÂ)- A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Conclusion
I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.
New contributor
Yes (and no)
Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.
In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.
Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.
The claim by Peterson is two-fold.
First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Bill C-16 made the following changes:
Bill C-16 added the words âÂÂgender identity or expressionâ to three places.
First: 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.
Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech â defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred â where it joins other identifiable groups.
Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If thereâÂÂs evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.
Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.
Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1
Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity ⦠will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.
Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3
Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4
Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it
A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:
- Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK
- this paper about physicians and abortion
NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that âÂÂrefusal to use a transgender employeeâÂÂs preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.âÂÂ)- A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Conclusion
I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
answered Dec 21 at 14:14
Leon
34817
34817
New contributor
New contributor
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
 |Â
show 8 more comments
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
9
9
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
Sorry, I am also new here. I'll remove the downvote if it isn't fair, but it seems to me that you copied the other answer and then contradicted it with opinion and rhetoric.
â Jerome Viveiros
Dec 21 at 14:21
2
2
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
@JeromeViveiros thanks for coming forth. The point I want to make using a similar format is that this is not a yes/no answer and thats why I present both cases pro and against it outside of my personal bias letting people decide for themselves. Ill look into more quotes against Peterson shortly.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 14:24
5
5
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
I don't understand why people are downvoting this answer. The examples of precedents for compelled speech seem very relevant here.
â Ben Millwood
Dec 21 at 15:10
5
5
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
@MichaelK 1) I copy pasted the excerpt about the actual law in discussion here, didn't copy paste any of your actual points. 2) You say indecisive I say objective. Your "NO" answer was subjective & inconclusive at best especially prior to your recent edit since I included claims from official sources (Canadian ones included) where the use of preferred pronouns is explicitly stated as foul similarly to what Peterson alludes, in contrast to what you mentioned originally("hate-speech laws are not uncommon â and not for using the "wrong" pronouns, which is what Peterson claims").
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:39
4
4
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
@MichaelK 2nd question was very precise: "Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?" is left entirely unmentioned and as you can see is subject independent, so irrelevant to transgender issues examples of compelled speech are perfectly within reason to display with what was asked for.
â Leon
Dec 21 at 15:42
 |Â
show 8 more comments
5
Just an idea but could this question possibly be a better fit for the law stackexchange?
â god of llamas
Dec 21 at 16:00
5
Worth watching: Peterson's Senate hearing: youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
â Mehrdad
Dec 22 at 2:34
5
Totally free speech = holocaust denial is allowed to utter. As wrong as HD is. If we don't like HD, we restrict free speech, aka "the content is mandated" to not be that! -> This is not really a claim about facts but an interpretation issue of language, politics and law. How can that be on-topic here?
â LangLangC
Dec 22 at 12:12
3
@LangLangC That is not what Peterson meant.
â MichaelK
Dec 22 at 16:33
3
What does mandate the content of voluntary speech mean anyway?
â Jan Doggen
yesterday