Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty 85 Replies latest social current

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    "Legislation of language..." Cofty

    I wouldn't be surprised that the word "nigger" can trigger lawsuits left and right. Legislation of language is a modern way to control verbal bullying and abuse. Verbal abuse, unfortunately is much harder to determine than physical abuse, so we are forced to use the ""victim" description of abuse. I find the whole thing a bit on the trivial side, but I am willing to please the "victim" if it doesn't cost me anything. And the only cost is that I have to memorize few new words. Quite easy

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Oops, I need to work on my math

  • bohm
    bohm
    Cofty: 0.3% of the world population is transgender. A far larger percentage of the students at elite universities are poseurs. They don't need laws to protect their affectations.

    Whether it is necessary to make it illegal to discriminate against a transperson ("sorry we don't hire transsexuals"), or that they need to be protected against hate speech ("kill all trannies") is, in my opinion, a side point. You are free to argue that they should not be a protected group (similar to religion, sex, ethnicity, etc. etc. I think they should if we have such things), but what I am addressing is Jordans claims that the bill C-16 pose an immediate danger to free speech -- which is unrelated to how many actual trans persons there are.

    I am simply failing to find a persuasive argument beneath the rhetoric (and there is a LOT of rhetoric in his piece) and I can't help noticing he earns about 5300 a month by talking on this subject.

  • cofty
    cofty
    . Legislation of language is a modern way to control verbal bullying and abuse - Never a JW

    Peterson's objection to law C-16 is not just that it limits what somebody can say - that would be bad enough. It is legislating what a person must say. That is a line the law must not be allowed to cross.

  • cofty
    cofty
    he earns about 5300 a month by talking on this subject - Bohm

    Do you have a source for that?

  • bohm
    bohm

    Cofty: Can you make it clear what piece of the legislation you specifically object to?:

    As far as I can tell, the Canadian Human Rights Act already grant rights and protected status to quite subjectively defined groups (for instance, religion). What this bill does is to introduce "gender identity and expression" (another subjective criterion) to that list; something which has already happened locally in many Canadian provinces including Toronto.

    For instance here is an old version of the purpose of the canadian human rights act pre-C 16:

    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, 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.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K5XrYRtQf8kJ:laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    How is that doing harm of real significance? Is that really all that bad? (should we be allowed to discriminate against transsexuals in the workplace or for instance incite to genocide against transsexuals?)

    Here is the content of C-16:

    ----

    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.

    1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)
    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.

    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,


  • bohm
    bohm

    Cofty:

    he earns about 5300 a month by talking on this subject - Bohm

    Do you have a source for that?

    Yes, I checked his Patreon page yesterday. In reality, he might also earn money from youtube, and possibly talks in the future. There is a large market for these kinds of things (leftish people behaving badly).
    Not that I think he is doing it for the money, I think becoming an internet celebrity and selling his research to a wider audience is a more important driver to a person in his position. However, I am hoping you will take your time to read through the bill (I copy-pasted it above) and then we can discuss the change you object to? As far as you can tell, is this bill doing more than adding "gender identity and expression" to the list of already covered groups? (religion, race, marital status, etc.). As far as I know, you can say really nasty things about married women in Canada in general and the sky isn't falling.
  • cofty
    cofty

    bohm - Perhaps it will turn out that you are right and Peterson's understanding of the law is wrong. I reserve judgement but I am very interested in following the debate.

    If it is true that a university professor can be in legal trouble for declining to pander to special snowflakes who demand to be referred to as Zi and Hir then it's a very bad law.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Cofty: Yes, it will probably be interesting. But have you read the actual bill C 16? I would really recommend you do so (I copy-pasted it above).

    Jordan Peterson, if you watch his videos carefully, is talking about some general trends he sees in society and thinks are very scary (the millions and millions of Marxist indoctrinated leftist people) and then go on to tie that into this specific bill which he sees as a key moment for free speech in Canada (and, what do you know, he just happens to be right in the middle of it). But in terms of what is actually in the bill (rather than what people are writing about the bill), it seems like a minor change to me.

    But I want to put you on the spot here: Do you think gender or gender identity should be a protected class similar to marriage status, age, religion, race, sex, etc.? Do you think making them a protected class erode fundamental rights? If so, why have the same rights not already been eroded by treating race, religion, etc. as protected characteristics?

    As for all this "yes, but what is someone insists I call him 'Xxspskghpf'", the same kind of arguments can be made as in "yes, but what if someone makes up a really stupid religion!". Being a protected class does not put your views or political ideology above scritiny.

  • bohm
    bohm
    If it is true that a university professor can be in legal trouble for declining to pander to special snowflakes who demand to be referred to as Zi and Hir then it's a very bad law.

    Okay, let's imagine a situation. In class:

    "Yes, the lady in the back".
    "Excuse me, Mr. Peterson. I prefer you call me 'gentleman' rather than 'lady'"

    (Normal world:) "Sorry. The GENTLEMAN in the back"

    (Petersons world:) "I REFUSE to pander to your Marxist ideology!" (Black helicopters swoop in and Jordan Peterson is taken to room 101).

    I work in a university environment and I have had no exposure to anything remotely resembling these problems. If a student wished I called him or her something else than him or her I can't see why I should not simply do it similar to how I try to call people by the name they prefer.

    In terms of legal troubles, well, the kind of legal troubles Jordan would face would be determined by the courts, but at most he could get a fine. And I think that requires far more than not wanting to say "Xir" to someone similar to how you are currently allowed to say very crass things to people who currently have a protected status without getting fined. If I said: "All women are stupid" that would not get me fined, and gender identity is just getting added to the same list...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit