Blogpost infested with rightwingers violating rabble policy - hi, mods!

531 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Look Magoo, I know you sometimes have this rhetorical thing where you ask a pointed question you insist on an answer for, but I think perhaps you have mistaken me for your trained barking seal.

Your question is absurd, as it is completely speculative.

It is pointness, since they do not have that power, so the question has no purpose except to someone who is fishing for an anwer to string off into another tangent.

So excuse me if I do not bite .

And the law isn't vague; it is pretty straightforward to extend protection in the Human Rights Act and criminal code to include transgendered people. It is a good idea that is a long time in coming.

Will it have to be balanced out against other rights?

Of course, but frankly, some tenured professor worried about its impact on his right to snub people, and spinning it as a left wing agenda isn't high on that list. His spin on it, and the false notion it wil force him to say anything at all IS a conspiracy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And do you really need me to point out why I ignored that question?

Given that it's a pretty straightforward question, I'd actually appreciate it if you would.

ed'd to add:  x-posted.

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Here's the thing about wacky conspiracy theories.

It isn't actually on the rest of us to prove that there is no possibility of it ever happening ..on mars, or wherever you think this might be going on.

 

I suppose it is on us though, if we follow you down your rabbit hole as a distraction from what bill C-16 is actually about:

No one said anything about a conspiracy. Are you sure you even know what that word means? As far as C-16 goes, at most you could say this is about the implications of codifying one position on the nature of gender into law - and a position that doesn't hold up very well, at that. Other positions, such as "anything other than cisnormative heterosexuality is a mental disorder" are at least as valid. Is it going to be legal to take that position, in the future? Is it going to be legal to publish research in support of a position like that? I am looking to push issues of speech as far as I can without running afoul of legislation, because I have always thought that restricting freedom of speech does more harm than the restricted speech could possibly do, and because I know that no matter what position I take on anything, there is always somebody else that would take it even further, and they should have the right to advocate for their position in public.

Mental illness is a loaded term, of course. I don't like to use it for anything, really, because I question the legitimacy of the concept. But, I thought it was interesting that during the lead-up to the release of the DSM-5, there were two camps of trans activists lobbying for gender identity disorder to be either included, or not included, in the DSM-5. One group wanted it taken out, of course, because it pathologizes their identity. Another group wanted it to remain, because that was the only way that they would be able to obtain funding for treatment for it! Clearly, these positions are at odds and not easily reconciled (although I think it's possible).

milo204

i think we all know the answer.

IF THEY COULD GET HIM FIRED THEY WOULD 

and to call the demands made by this law just simple straight forward human rights protections is again, ignoring what it's already trying to do in practice: i.e. orweillian style imposition of speech terms on unwilling speakers (very different than maknig certain words off limits) under penalty of the state.

It's crossing a threshold that could potentially be dangerous and the idea that even discussing it freely could be deemed outside the law is frankly insane and scary.  And to say "just trust the authorities" is as well.

How many laws being abused have we on the left pointed out over the years?  resisting arrest(not kowtowing), interfering w a police officer (filming) anti terror laws (being an activist), hate speech laws (being a comedian, supporting bds) the list is almost exponential...

 

milo204

i could almost bet that the next issue to make use of this law would be hardcore israel supporters saying that if you refer to the state as terrorists or a terror state that should be illegal.

and you would find A LOT of mp's looking to support that.

6079_Smith_W

Just to be clear milo, you are talking about this law :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Act

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Milo, don't forget that the protesters who brought a white-noise generator to Peterson's speech weren't there to quibble about some irrelevant made-up pronouns -- it's ONLY Peterson who's obsessed with those.

All they wanted was the right to be non-conforming gender-fluid and still rent an apartment.

milo204

i think that's a kinda skirting the issue. 

The issue is this idea that we should always "trust the authorities" and that we don't have to worry when they pass laws like this becasue they'll "do the right thing" etc.

Clearly there are a gazillion examples of them doing the opposite, so why is when we on the left see a law like that, only instead of going after people we generally like, it's targeting people we generally don't--all of a sudden everyone supports it and won't even question it, and you must be some kind of "phobe" if you don't get in line and nod your head.

It's like there's a blind spot to authoritarianism and asshole behavior if it in some way aligns with our goals, yet we have no  problem seeing it when it doesn't.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
i think that's a kinda skirting the issue.

So I'm wearing a skirt now?

Did you just assume my gender???

milo204

haha well it does say "Mr."

milo204

it's just something i've noticed amongst fellow lefties, going all the way back.  We seem to be able to support authoritarian behaviour if it aligns with our general "goals", but if the same types of laws etc were passed on something that goes against our "goals" we have no problem recognizing and pointing out what's unfair about it.

i think that's dangerous and hypocritical and frankly pandering and lazy too....by our own stated political beliefs we should have no problem making a free and open society without infringing on anyones rights (whether we agree with them or not)...

6079_Smith_W

milo204 wrote:

We seem to be able to support authoritarian behaviour if it aligns with our general "goals"

So Canada's Human Rights Act is authoritarian?

I call bullshit. On that, and on the notion that anyone here (in this thread, anyway) is supporting authoritarianism.

 

Sineed

milo204 wrote:

it's just something i've noticed amongst fellow lefties, going all the way back.  We seem to be able to support authoritarian behaviour if it aligns with our general "goals", but if the same types of laws etc were passed on something that goes against our "goals" we have no problem recognizing and pointing out what's unfair about it.

i think that's dangerous and hypocritical and frankly pandering and lazy too....by our own stated political beliefs we should have no problem making a free and open society without infringing on anyones rights (whether we agree with them or not)...

That's an extremely cogent point, Milo. Though to be fair to lefties, it isn't just the left that's afflicted with confirmation bias. We are all emotionally attached to our beliefs. The more dearly-held the beliefs, the harder it is for people to see their shortcomings.

A bill that serves to extend human rights' protections is something we want to embrace. But Bill C-16 warrants scrutiny by virtue of its attempt to codiy into law protections around "gender identity and gender expression," because of a lack of clarity over what exactly comprises gender identity and gender expression. The discussion here has been on a possible assault on freedom of speech, but my concern is more women's safety.

Meghan Murphy wrote:
Women's spaces — including homeless shelters, transition houses, washrooms, and change rooms — exist to offer women protection from men. It isn't men who fear that women might enter their locker rooms and flash, harass, assault, abuse, photograph, or kill them… This reality is often left unaddressed in conversations around gender identity. This reality is sex-based, not identity-based. Men cannot identify their way out of the oppressor class so easily, neither can women simply choose to identify their way out of vulnerability to male violence.

...

As unpopular as this fact has become, a man or boy who wishes to identify as a woman or girl, perhaps taking on stereotypically feminine body language, hairstyles, and clothing, is still male. He still has male sex organs, which means girls and women will continue to see him as a threat and feel uncomfortable with his presence in, say, change rooms. Is it now the responsibility of women and girls to leave their own spaces if they feel unsafe? Are teenage girls obligated to overcome material reality lest they be accused of bigotry?

We had an incident here in Toronto where a man said he identified as a woman, and was granted access to a woman's shelter, where he raped two women. People who say these sorts of incidents never happen show a basic inability to google.

Nobody should be persecuted for living their life in a way that makes sense for them. But women-only spaces exist for a reason, and is this legislation making it illegal for me to, say, kick a dude out of the YMCA changeroom if he insists that he is a woman?

Whose rights are really being protected here? I think a lot of people are not really thinking clearly, but engaging in nothing more than virtue signalling.

6079_Smith_W

@ Sineed,

Aside from the fact these decisions, whether they are fair or not,  are for the most part made by councils, not authoritarians, Bill C-16 doesn't in fact spell out how balance will be found between the intersecting rights of women and trans people. But we do know that none of these rights are absolute; all of them (including the protection of expression) are balanced as appropriate.

So Murphy's ringing of the alarm bells is a bit premature, if it is warranted at all. And she discounts the far more important reasons for bringing protection for transgendered people into the legislation. Should it be legal to refuse them work and other services? No.

Similarly, in this case we have a professor accusing the government and radical leftists of forcing him to use certain language, without a shred of evidence that is going to happen.

Which is why I call framing this as support for authoritarianism B.S.

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Sineed,

Aside from the fact these decisions, whether they are fair or not,  are for the most part made by councils, not authoritarians, Bill C-16 doesn't in fact spell out how balance will be found between the intersecting rights of women and trans people. But we do know that none of these rights are absolute; all of them (including the protection of expression) are balanced as appropriate.

So Murphy's ringing of the alarm bells is a bit premature, if it is warranted at all. And she discounts the far more important reasons for bringing protection for transgendered people into the legislation. Should it be legal to refuse them work and other services? No.

Similarly, in this case we have a professor accusing the government and radical leftists of forcing him to use certain language, without a shred of evidence that is going to happen.

Which is why I call framing this as support for authoritarianism B.S.

So it's premature to ring the alarm bells because people should just trust that the government will balance things as appropriate?

Councils can be authoritarian.

And, yeah, it does seem like Professors are walking a fine line if they are asked to refer to somebody as "they" and refuse to do so for what are basically political reasons.

6079_Smith_W

Considering that we have had wild unfounded predictions like this numerous times in the past - about marriage equality, about firearms law, about child porn law, about abortion choice, to name a couple - and NOT wound up with an authoritarian state forcing their politically correct values on us, yes, I would advise waiting until when and if there is an actual conflict that is worth dealing with.

And at that point, oh... maybe dealing with it rather than repealing the entire Human Rights Act because any of its provisions could potentially be used to infringe on someone's rights.

Frankly in both Peterson's and Murphy's case I see more concern trolling than actual concern about fair application of the law. Why? because neither one of them go anywhere near the simple fact that including a vulnerable group of people in a law protecting all of us from discrimination is a good idea.

 

milo204

@Sineed:  I think you're totally right, the more we feel attached to something, the more we will bend our brains in support of it and that's probably part of it on all sides...great points.

@smith: see you're  picking cases that weren't necessarily examples of other peoples rights being infringed on (marriage, abortion) to protect anyone, it was more about letting people do as they wish, and in that we all support it.

I'm thinking of cases where to protect one group, anothers rights are clearly violated, or open to that possibility and it being at least somewhat likely.  more like bill c51/anti terror, anti BDS laws, "burka bans", language laws, human rights tribunals fining comics and artists.

One of Petersons arguments is that these kinds of laws drive people with hate underground, out of sight and away from criticism, and i think that's a perfectly viablle point.  Hell, just look down south at the KKK drives to get people to vote trump....

like i said, i just think there's a way to balance people's right to express themselves without infringing on anyone elses right to speak and think how they wish.

6079_Smith_W

Guess why that is milo.... no one's rights have been infringed on here either.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the bill does still need to clear the senate.  So that might be part of why nobody's been SLAPPed with it yet.

Boze

A big part of the problem is the belief, especially prevalent on the left, that people mean well and are trustworthy, so, the thinking goes, we don't really need to worry about abuses of authority too much, at least not until they actually happen. So it has increasingly been seen as gauche - "politically incorrect," you might say - to question a minority group's demands, or their interpretation of reality. You never see Black Lives Matter groups' more ridiculous demands condemned or questioned, for instance, because that would be being a bad ally. So, people politely avoid the subject. Trans activists - many of whose claim to speak for transgender people generally is highly dubious - say that their pronouns are "not up for debate," and a matter of "basic human respect," which is a claim that no other group would make, and yet the idea of having a discussion along the lines of "do people really get to determine their own pronouns? What are pronouns for, anyway? What is the relation of pronouns to identity? etc." is seen as ugly - or, politically incorrect. "Cis people have no business arguing with trans people about what constitutes reasonable accommodation." "White people have no business arguing with persons of colour about whether something is racist or not." I would hope that by now it is becoming increasingly obvious that positions like this are pretty much intellectually and morally bankrupt. 

The world, and politics in particular, is full of people with atavistic motives, some of whom are just plain bad actors. If you give people an opportunity to benefit from doing bad, then people will do bad. Of course people will abuse authority and abuse social justice ideals that place their ideas above criticism. More than that, some people just want to see the world burn. Some people are legitimately more concerned with tearing down what they see as oppressive than with what might be erected in its place - and that's cool. I used to be like that. Bakunin's famous quote that "The urge to destroy is also a creative impulse," that kind of thing. I used to want to tear down the gender binary, too, because, why not? Why the fuck not? It wasn't doing me any good. I was not invested in it, at all. I wasn't gonna have kids. In some profound sense, I wasn't really invested in the idea of a continuing society. So why not propose absolutely insane ideas like "since everything's a social construct, maybe we can get rid of all heteronormativity (as though heterosexuality isn't the default, "normal" position) and cisnormativity, and the next generation will be the queerest of them all and that will be awesome"? People actually think like this, and it's not hard to find the online discussion spaces where they talk pretty openly about wanting to create a world where kids don't grow up with any idea that biological sex exists. Oh, hey, didn't Nicholas Matte say on The Agenda that biological sex doesn't exist? Turns out it's not too hard to find people that advocate these sorts of positions in real life.

6079_Smith_W

Hey Magoo, do let us know when the black marias pull up out back to take you away, or a piece of the sky falls on your head.

 

And Boze, I don't agree with the most controversial of BLM-TO's demands and I have been vocal about it.

So there's about as much truth in that baseless generalization as there is in every other one that has been slung in this thread.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Again, the bill WILL need to clear the Senate before it becomes law.

Kind of like Bill C-51.  Has any Canadian been deprived of their rights because of it?  If no, should we go ahead and support it?

6079_Smith_W

Not a good comparison, actually.

Thing is, the Canadian Human Rights Act HAS been in place for 40 years. All C-16 does is add gender identity to the existing protections for sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political and religious belief. It makes a similar addition to these same protections in the criminal code.

So we have had 40 years to see whether this law would get people locked up in camps, fined into poverty, forced out of their work or compelled to take oaths and make statements against their own conscience.

Has it turned Canada into The Crucible? You'd think we might have noticed in nearly half a century, no?

In fact, in the most recent case when the Act was found to infringe on freedom of expression, freedom of expression won, and the Act was changed.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-...

Keep in mind that ruling and repeal had nothing to do with the statuses being protected - which is what C-16 is about.

 

 

 

Boze

Quote:
So we have had 40 years to see whether this law would get people locked up in camps, fined into poverty, forced out of their work or compelled to take oaths and make statements against their own conscience.

Can you stop this? Please? "The sky hasn't fallen; the way you were acting, you'd have thought that the SKY would FALL, and it hasn't fallen, so you don't have any legitimate concerns." It's a way to dismiss people's arguments without addressing them.

Second, how many people do you think refrain from speaking their thoughts on racial, sexual, or transgender politics? Because they know that their opinions are not thought to be politically correct? Instead, they keep their impolitic ideas to themselves, and so those ideas are never articulated and are never challenged. Because it's easier go along to get along than to have the hard conversations that social justice types say we are supposed to have - because so many of these social justice warriors, especially the younger generations, don't practice what they preach, they don't undestand the rhetoric that they just regurgitate without thinking, they merely understand it in the same way one might understand religious dogma. So you try to have the hard conversation that they say needs to happen, but they have a different understanding of what that conversation ought to be like. They expect you to listen and obey. If you have rebuttals to their points, they say "you're not listening, I'm willing to teach you but you need to be willing to learn." They don't want discussion. They want to teach their dogma. And they are terrifying, because they're not acting as human beings, but as people who have been possessed by ideological demons. They refuse to be reasoned with, and are absolutely convinced of their own righteousness. They are channelling the most terrifying force in human history, and that's not alarmism. That's a fact.

6079_Smith_W

dp

6079_Smith_W

Well you are the ones ringing the alarm bells about stuff that hasn't happened and is highly unlikely ever to happen. Maybe stop the damned concern trolling and look at the fact that human rights legislation is actually a necessary thing that protects us all.

So again, let me know when a chunk of the sky falls and hits you on the head, because that is exactly as seriously as I take this insulting nonsense.

Don't want to hear it again?  Then maybe Peterson and his ilk should ante up with some actual evidence, or stop using these imagined impositions as a front to bash whatever he thinks the radical left is. Honest attempts to make a law better and balance rights is perfectly fine. Going on the offensive on a simple amendment to 40-year-old legislation? Give me a break.

 

milo204

Smith i'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose but i gave a handful of examples where laws are already going too far: "bill c51/anti terror, anti BDS laws, "burka bans", language laws, human rights tribunals fining comics and artists." and infringing on people's rights yet you keep saying "it hasn't happened for 40 years"

what about when they made up a fake law, enforced it and threw people in jail illlegally and then admitted there never was a law in the first place during the g20/7 whatever in toronto?

These are the maniacs we're supposed to trust with our rights?

point is:  the HRC can be applied and protect people without the PARTICULAR WAY this part is being handled. 

milo204

and also can someone please expplain why the "sky is falling" if in fact Peterson gets his way and uses some form of universally recognized english to respectfully describe people as opposed to the particular word they themselves choose (as is acceptable for pretty much every other person?)

6079_Smith_W

milo204 wrote:

These are the maniacs we're supposed to trust with our rights?

point is:  the HRC can be applied and protect people without the PARTICULAR WAY this part is being handled. 

What are you saying there? That you can't trust the government therefore there should be no laws?

As I have repeated numerous times this is an amendment to the Human Rights Act. What particular way are you talking about? Do you have a problem with including trans people under prevention from discrimination, exactly the same as existing protections for race, orientation and sex? Because that is the particular thing it does.

Neither C-51 nor Burqa bans are based on human rights legislation.

What language law are you talking about? Official bilingualism? Or Quebec's Bill 101, which in fact used the notwithstanding clause as an EXCEPTION to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Either way, you will need to clarify how you think it relates to this.

Anti-BDS law? You know as well as I do that is a conflation of valid political action and discrimination and will not survive any challenge.

And what comics and artists are you talking about? Want to talk about specific rulings? You'll have to let me know what you are talking about.

And as I have also said a couple of times, There is no evidence that there are going to be any consequences if Peterson wants to continue being rude to people. If he is bound and determined to run afoul of the law I'm sure he can do it, but so far the only one crying that the sky is falling about made up stuff is him.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do you have a problem with including trans people under prevention from discrimination, exactly the same as existing protections for race, orientation and sex? Because that is the particular thing it does.

Then what if we all just agreed that HRCs and the Charter are for ensuring equal access to housing, employment, commercial services and other material concerns.

And NOT to be hijacked to soothe hurt feelings, resolve insults, or SLAPP people we disagree with?

If we could then I would cheerfully agree that Peterson has nothing to worry about.

Sineed

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Thing is, the Canadian Human Rights Act HAS been in place for 40 years. All C-16 does is add gender identity to the existing protections for sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political and religious belief. It makes a similar addition to these same protections in the criminal code.

When we are protecting people against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status etc, these are real and material facts about who they are as human beings. In contrast, there is no clear definition of gender identity and gender expression. So a white heterosexual man says he is a woman, and not only are we supposed to respect that at face value, but automatically he changes status to be one of "the most oppressed people in our society," according to NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo, among others.

Amongst my patients, I have seen several waver between trans and not-trans. Can people really identify into and out of oppression so easily?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Can people really identify into and out of oppression so easily?

Depends what's at stake.

If they wake up tomorrow and identify as "non-binary, gender-fluid", could they make a professor lose his job, for example?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And Magoo, no. You are doing that chicken little thing again.

Perhaps.  Call me a worrywart.

But if this bill passes through Senate, I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the honest, good-faith activists who rented a white-noise generator will or will not try to use it to give this professor his comeuppance.  You seem to believe that never would they ever, but given how zealots operate, and how few their boundaries are, I'm still not ruling it out.

6079_Smith_W

Sineed, do you think there should be a law to protect someone from being refused work, a place to live, or a seat in a restaurant because of trans status?

Or to cut to the chase, that they should be refused entry into the washroom of their choice, as is the case in North Carolina?

If the notion of people changing is challenging, you might want to remember that discrimination based on religion, political belief, and marital status are also covered. These are all things which a person can make a decision to change. I'm not sure why this is a problem, especially since rights legislation doesn't afford anyone a benefit or advantage; if protects one from discrimination.

And Magoo, no. You are doing that chicken little thing again.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well if that ever does happen, fortunately we have rights legislation to protect people from unfair dismissal for matters of conscience, and to protect them from infringement on their freedom of expression.

Unless we decide those kinds of laws are  radical left  authoritarianism, that is, and do away with them.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well if that ever does happen, fortunately we have rights legislation to protect people from unfair dismissal for matters of conscience, and to protect them from infringement on their freedom of expression.

Will "freedom of expression" continue to include saying "he" and "she"?

milo204

Smith, no one's suggesting the rights of trans people or anyone else shouldn't be protected under the human rights act, it's is only the part of being forced to use certain words at the behest of some individual under possible punishment of the law, which is a totally new thing. 

None of us has even implied that the whole of the HRA should be tossed, precisely because aside from this new strange amendment, it's a perfectly good thing.

Also, i'm not sure why trans people keep coming up when the issue is gender neutral people.  Peterson actually enjoys support from the some of the online trans community and has routinely said he would refer to a trans woman as a woman etc, that's not what he's debating.  It's also odd that people think because he won't use that huge list of strange pronouns that he would be an asshole to even gender neutral people when he so far has been very respectful to people in debates (even if they're full of it or screaming at him)

again, i just don't see why the amendment can't be passed without that one specific part included, and still provide the same protection to people, whatever they identify with.  That doesn't prevent anyone from getting a place or a job.

6079_Smith_W

Here is Bill C-16 Milo.

Read it please. It is not very long, and it is pretty straightforward. The amendments are underlined; in each case they add four words to the Act, and to the Criminal Code.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode...

Then consider how what you just said is relevant (or not) to it.

If you still see something in the Bill which you consider a problem, and which you think should be removed, I wouldn't mind if you said specifically what you are talking about.

Me repeating this over and over again is obviously not getting the point through.

And there is a reason why I asked the question I did. It is a completely reasonable request for clarification.

 

 

iyraste1313

Lagatta, why do you engage those scumbags? Our place for discussion is babble. Not the fetid swamps of Disqus comments. Stop talking to them, and they will die. If you hadn't pointed me there, I wouldn't even have guessed that such filth exists....

....recently I read in some thread....¨Go Hillary¨!!!

Yes and wherever she goes, betrayal, death, massacre and eco destruction follows....

May I suggest to Rabble, that thyey set up 2 fora for discussions, one of activists and truth seekers, a second for apologists and the lovers of of zombis

Sineed

Woman tries to protect herself from a man stalking her. Man files Human Rights' complaint.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-human-rights-comp...

Quote:

A transgender woman in Charlottetown has filed a complaint with the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission alleging she was refused service at a local salon because of her transgender status.

Kristen McKay says she went into Carrie's Esthetic Salon in downtown Charlottetown on Tuesday afternoon to get her nails and makeup done and for makeup lessons.

...

"It is unfortunate that the situation is being referred to as a transgender issue when the only issue is about my safety. I have absolutely no issues with transgender people and support their cause," MacFadyen said in the statement.

It goes on to say that McKay is often standing or sitting on the street where MacFadyen parks her car and that — along with the fact that McKay then showed up at her work — made her uneasy.

Edited to add: here's another story about the same dude from 2010, when he was kicked out of a Sobey's for loitering.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2010-11-10/article-1947564/Refus...

This legislation will hamper the ability of women to protect themselves from creepy dudes.

 

6079_Smith_W

No, business owners can't simply refuse people entry because they don't like them, so if there is another reason that will have to be established.

If in fact this is a person trying to use the law as an aid to assault and harrassment it wouldn't be the first time. It can happen with many laws. I have personally seen zero tolerance abuse laws turned against a woman who was a victim of domestic violence. In this case it it up to the commission to sort that out. Sounds like the Sobeys incident might offer a strong clue there, and when this gets to the stage of negotiation (if it gets that far) it may become clearer if the complainant has an ulterior motive.

But again, sorry if this puts you on the spot, but do you think transgendered people should be protected from discrimination under the law?

As for spinning all transgendered people as creepy guys and people who can just decide every morning what they want to be, I see great misunderstanding. I don't have that much of a personal understanding of this issue, but of the several transgendered people I know, in one case the motive wasn't how they could figure out how to assault someone, it was how they could sort their lives out in a way to avoid committing suicide.

(edit)

I did a search on that same story. No followup that I could find in the news. And no decision either by a panel or court:

http://www.gov.pe.ca/humanrights/index.php3?number=72421&lang=E

Without making assumptions about what happened here, there is no way to guarantee a society where there will not be false accusations and complaints, even with the best laws.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But again, sorry if this puts you on the spot, but do you think transgendered people should be protected from discrimination under the law?

I don't think anyone here, nor Peterson for that matter, is trying to suggest that transgendered people don't deserve protection from discrimination.

I think the actual issues here are:

1.  is being "gender-fluid" or "both-gendered" or "agendered" or whatever the same as being transgendered?

2.  does calling someone "he" if that person prefers "ze" a form of discrimination under the revised bill?

We could move on to discussing those once you're satisfied that we all believe that transgendered people should be allowed to rent an apartment.

6079_Smith_W

Well so long as these spurious arguments keep recirculating, no I am not satisfied.

Some here have said they are concerned about Bill C-16, which adds FOUR WORDS to existing legislation.

I think asking which of those four words is the problem is a fair question. And if there is no problem, perhaps we can reach an agreement that this is smoke.

But I wouldn't mind a clear answer. All I have so far in this summit for concern about free expression is people implying I shouldn't be asking this simple question.

 

 

Boze

What is "gender expression," other than fashion, if there are no inherent differences between male and female behaviour and expression? That's a serious question.

Here is Prof. Peterson's latest video. It is, as usual, instructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8tVB7sNxc

6079_Smith_W

No more fashion than your political, religious and moral convictions Boze.

You are protected from discrimination for those under legislation. To equate others' identity with "fashion" is just misunderstanding and prejudice.

Or maybe you change your values like you change your shirt, but I assume not. And I wouldn't insult you by saying so.

 

Boze

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No more fashion than your political, religious and moral convictions Boze.

Those are protected under legislation. To equate others' identity with "fashion" is just misunderstanding and prejudice.

Or maybe you change your values like you change your shirt, but I assume not. And I wouldn't insult you by saying so.

I don't change my sense of fashion, or my taste in music, or my aesthetics generally, or my ethics for that matter, as I change my shirt.

But "identity" is hollow and meaningless, in my opinion. Selves don't really exist. The self is an illusion. Does this make me prejudiced?

From the above video, Peterson quotes the letter from the University's representative:

"The University cannot host a form that will offer a platform for an expressed intention to engage in conduct with your students and colleagues that you appear to have acknowledged will be in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code."

So, is it in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code to say "I will not use gender-neutral pronouns, and neither should you" or is it merely a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code to actually not use gender-neutral pronouns, and the University doesn't feel it can offer him a platform to express an intention to violate the law? Because as far as I'm concerned, that's an awful law.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think asking which of those four words is the problem is a fair question.

I would go with "gender [...] expression".

I think we all know pretty clearly what "age" means, or "ethnic origin" means or "sexual orientation" means.  And whatever your or my age, ethnic origin or sexual orientation are, that's what they are. 

"Gender expression" isn't quite so well defined or obvious.  But evidently, I'd better never "discriminate" against someone on the basis of it.  You assure us that calling someone "he" instead of "xe" will never qualify as discrimnation, but I'd love it if the law could just clarify this.  Because as Boze notes, it's the only "discrimination" that Peterson seems to be accused of, and already he's being told it's in contravention of the law.

6079_Smith_W

Who has said he is in contravention of the law?

Aside from him. that is.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

His employer, no?

Or else how should we parse this?

The University of Toronto wrote:
engage in conduct with your students and colleagues that you appear to have acknowledged will be in violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

I'm very confident that a letter like that, sent by a Dean to a tenured faculty member, would have been vetted by General Counsel.  I can't see why they'd say such a thing if, in fact, Peterson's refusal to say "zim" is not, in fact, a concern for the law.

Basically, Peterson seems to believe that saying "he" will be grounds for HRC complaints, and his employer seems to also believe they will be, and the white noise crowd already seems to believe he's spouting "hate speech". 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'd say it is fair comment, and that it is shorthand for accusing him of grandstanding.

We may simply disagree on this, but I have real doubts that the General Counsel for the University of Toronto would have recommended that these Deans "sabre rattle" in order to accuse him of grandstanding.  If the University genuinely and in good faith felt that he was on solid legal ground then this would be dishonest and a bit disgusting.

Peterson, his employer, and his critics all seem to believe that what he's saying may be legally actionable when this bill passes.  Do you have something to tell all of them?

Pages