Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
She may look like a fool but these people continued engineering laws just like this. They won so completely that they're working on a future- crime bill now.
Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
A very detailed short essay there! Good effort, but I think wasted in this comment section of devoted acolytes. Peterson is the human incarnation of r/circlejerk. I’m pretty sure he’s decompensating slowly into psychosis. And he was dishonest about Bill C-16 from the get go, which suggests he had pre-existing psychiatric issues that led to his deliberate misrepresentation of the legislation.
What a fucking joke, this has ran on for way too long🙃 who cares what you are or what you want to be or imagine you are or what you think you want to be. Grow up! We are in a war and our country is a shit show.. and we are WORRIED????? ABOUT GENDER??????? America is so fucked
White American men have been had & had & @ the forefront of liberating women & minorities of my generation. Sometimes like myself defending downtrodden of all sorts at bodily, & financial risk. I've personally sufferd like st Paul for all those now persecting Peterson and often myself.
This man needs to run for prime minister. Seriously, wouldn’t we benefit from having such an intelligent AND fair person being in charge of this country? As apposed to an average iq politician who makes decisions based on popular opinion?
Intelligent: Re-tweeted fetish porn thinking it was an actual Chinese sperm-milking facility. Fair: Demanded prison because a comic strip offered the message that being openly transgender takes courage. It might be a hard sell to get people to buy your standard for a "intelligent AND fair person"
@@Narcissistic_opinionation No matter how smart you believe Peterson to be, *you* were never smart engouh to realize how he blatantly lied to your face. Like his other average followers.
Also this is from bafomet to kiss his booty couchie look it up the devil's doing this & the elite are helping as they s sold thee soul so hope all yous enjoy hell while we're with yashewa amen 😊
I'm a women & I'm offended by men pretending to be women change what in called so trans needs n wants trump ours don't think so what gives anyone the right to demand we live in there dulusion & tell ppl what to say n what not to say & for this reason I'll be calling every man pretending to be women bob Jimmy counterfeit if they want to live like that then do it but don't try put laws onto us just get on with your life were not interested in it were sick to death of it
The man who re-tweets fetih porn because he was fooled into thinking it was a real Chinese "milking" factility? That is indeed a different kind of thinking...
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code [Assented to 19th June, 2017] Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following: Purpose 2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. 2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Prohibited grounds of discrimination 3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. CRIMINAL CODE 3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Definition of identifiable group (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. 4 Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor
@@IamKlaus007 Well the group is repeating the obvious, blatant lies Peterson oroginally made by Peterson about C-16. I assume they believe they are right because so, very, very few read the bill for themselves though it takes 3 minutes.
@@IamKlaus007 You really need me to provide you with something you could have easily looked up? There: *An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code* [Assented to 19th June, 2017] Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT* *1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:* *Purpose* *2* The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. *2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:* *Prohibited grounds of discrimination* *3 (1)* For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. *CRIMINAL CODE* *3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:* *Definition of identifiable group* *(4)* In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. *4 Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:* *(i)* evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor
Women! Show yourselves! If what he says is mainly/somewhat relevent, then please say it. Otherwise it can be seen as some extreme right -wing hatred. He surely isn't (and can't be totally) right, but if you ladies think it's valid to some degree, then say it. God Bless you. I love.
@@misanthrophex If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Except for the fact that he's bitter and traumatized......he's very smart, well read and well spoken. Not bad comparing to the other 90% losers of this planet. It's very sad that one of the very few smart people on this planet is this bitter & traumatized old grandpa
At that age he wasn't bitter and traumatised, until you people made this man's life a living hell. You short sighted, self obsessed, narcissistic pseudo-victims. If you had an inkling of understanding about what this man is actually doing for humanity, you'd be on your knees asking for forgiveness. And he would forgive you...
A party of one Dr Peterson means more than a group of peop!e defending transgenderism
Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Lowkey tho , jordan peterson should run canada next to pierre polievre , canada will thrive !
ALWAYS come prepared!😂
She may look like a fool but these people continued engineering laws just like this. They won so completely that they're working on a future- crime bill now.
I like JP a lot myself but the glazing in this comments section is beyond ridiculous.
Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
A very detailed short essay there! Good effort, but I think wasted in this comment section of devoted acolytes. Peterson is the human incarnation of r/circlejerk. I’m pretty sure he’s decompensating slowly into psychosis. And he was dishonest about Bill C-16 from the get go, which suggests he had pre-existing psychiatric issues that led to his deliberate misrepresentation of the legislation.
It's immutable and chosen and stfu
I bet she's fun at partys
What a fucking joke, this has ran on for way too long🙃 who cares what you are or what you want to be or imagine you are or what you think you want to be. Grow up! We are in a war and our country is a shit show.. and we are WORRIED????? ABOUT GENDER??????? America is so fucked
White American men have been had & had & @ the forefront of liberating women & minorities of my generation. Sometimes like myself defending downtrodden of all sorts at bodily, & financial risk. I've personally sufferd like st Paul for all those now persecting Peterson and often myself.
The DSM has been politicized for about 60 years
Thank you Jordan Peterson for doing all in your power to save humanity
One fetish-porn retweet at a time...
Ouch
This is what I imagine it would be like for a philosopher to defend himself in court.
Who can oppose that what he says?
the quietest youtube video
This man needs to run for prime minister. Seriously, wouldn’t we benefit from having such an intelligent AND fair person being in charge of this country? As apposed to an average iq politician who makes decisions based on popular opinion?
Intelligent: Re-tweeted fetish porn thinking it was an actual Chinese sperm-milking facility. Fair: Demanded prison because a comic strip offered the message that being openly transgender takes courage. It might be a hard sell to get people to buy your standard for a "intelligent AND fair person"
Just move to the States....while we are still free
If only he would take his victim-playing there. He will not though, he knows he lies about Canada.
@TheMarsCydonia you wish you were nearly as smart has him 😂
@@Narcissistic_opinionation No matter how smart you believe Peterson to be, *you* were never smart engouh to realize how he blatantly lied to your face. Like his other average followers.
@TheMarsCydonia Lol who broke your heart
@@TheMarsCydonia why do you sound like a heartbroken bitch?
I don't think she made a fool out of herself. She asked thoguhtful questions, and he gave good answers
He brought a logical gun to their knife fight lol
How so?
Everyone seems so miserable, because of satan and the spiritual death. Hope everyone repents to Jesus soon 🙏⚠️❤️
Jordan Peterson is not an intellectual, he's a pundit.
Also this is from bafomet to kiss his booty couchie look it up the devil's doing this & the elite are helping as they s sold thee soul so hope all yous enjoy hell while we're with yashewa amen 😊
I'm a women & I'm offended by men pretending to be women change what in called so trans needs n wants trump ours don't think so what gives anyone the right to demand we live in there dulusion & tell ppl what to say n what not to say & for this reason I'll be calling every man pretending to be women bob Jimmy counterfeit if they want to live like that then do it but don't try put laws onto us just get on with your life were not interested in it were sick to death of it
I'm a biological women that dosent want women in government as they go on feelings not facts as we've seen for ever all threw time
Yawn 4:15
I dont think a canadian, tranny obsessed, benzo addict that sounds like kermit the frog can "make a fool" out of anyone
Bad audio. Got every volume level turned up. Cannot hear a word she is saying.
Why is he soeaking so loud?
Is he andrew real father
Senators amateurism in playing with explosives like gender identity.
That guy is the most outstanding thinker ive seen in my life
The man who re-tweets fetih porn because he was fooled into thinking it was a real Chinese "milking" factility? That is indeed a different kind of thinking...
@@TheMarsCydoniathe man who banged ur mom
@@slothymango Nah, my dad may be smarter than any of Peterson's followers but that is a very, very low bar.
@@TheMarsCydoniado you not have a life outside of your screen
Problem are those papers. Nobody is speaking from Heart and Truth. Only from a Brain of a Liar.
He is absolutely correct 👏
The man is too coherent, that he is incomprehensible for her
What did you not understand?
@@misanthrophex i meant for the senator lady peterson only speaks the truth
they even say it in their own hymn like they saw it coming: Oh Canada!
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code [Assented to 19th June, 2017] Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following: Purpose 2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. 2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: Prohibited grounds of discrimination 3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. CRIMINAL CODE 3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: Definition of identifiable group (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. 4 Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor
Owned
Just because you're part of a group of "like minded" people, doesn't necessarily make you right as JBP has clearly demonstrated.
Does that apply to Peterson and his followers?
@@TheMarsCydonia Depends what the group is saying.
@@IamKlaus007 Well the group is repeating the obvious, blatant lies Peterson oroginally made by Peterson about C-16. I assume they believe they are right because so, very, very few read the bill for themselves though it takes 3 minutes.
@@TheMarsCydonia How about you post C-16 full text so we can see that what you're claiming is valid.
@@IamKlaus007 You really need me to provide you with something you could have easily looked up? There: *An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code* [Assented to 19th June, 2017] Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: *CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT* *1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:* *Purpose* *2* The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. *2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:* *Prohibited grounds of discrimination* *3 (1)* For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. *CRIMINAL CODE* *3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:* *Definition of identifiable group* *(4)* In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. *4 Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:* *(i)* evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor
Thank God people like him exist in this time we need him.
I think the same. Thank God.
why are the sane people being accused of shit all day, while the maniacs are being supported?
Biggest mistake of Dr. Peterson is to assume, that politicians are intelligent and not just greedy vermin.
I never overestimate his followers. Not one took the time to read a page long bill and the same number have been able to understand it.
That’s why we need to abolish the senate. Bullshit baffes brain.
Women! Show yourselves! If what he says is mainly/somewhat relevent, then please say it. Otherwise it can be seen as some extreme right -wing hatred. He surely isn't (and can't be totally) right, but if you ladies think it's valid to some degree, then say it. God Bless you. I love.
Peterson obviously, blatantly and shamelessly lied about C-16.
@@TheMarsCydonia in what way did he lie?
@@misanthrophex If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Peterson is excellent
Ahh yes. I will always love this man. 🫡
Wasn't compelled speach never a part of this bill? You could still misgender whomever you want.
The bill only takes 3 minutes to read. It's easily found. Short answer: the bill does not compel speech, Peterson lied about it and still does.
is this simple fact . we understand this , how can they can not understand him
Except for the fact that he's bitter and traumatized......he's very smart, well read and well spoken. Not bad comparing to the other 90% losers of this planet. It's very sad that one of the very few smart people on this planet is this bitter & traumatized old grandpa
At that age he wasn't bitter and traumatised, until you people made this man's life a living hell. You short sighted, self obsessed, narcissistic pseudo-victims. If you had an inkling of understanding about what this man is actually doing for humanity, you'd be on your knees asking for forgiveness. And he would forgive you...
@@misanthrophex He made his own life a living hell by getting addicted to benzos. Maybe you should learn a thing or two about self-responsibility.