Bill c 16 no its not about criminalizing pronoun misuse

From Jordan Peterson Criticism Analysis
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Metadata[edit | edit source]

Title: Bill C-16 – No, its Not about Criminalizing Pronoun Misuse

Link Archive Link

Organisation: University Of Toronto

Department: Mark S Bonham Centre for Sexual Studies

Distribution: SexText: The SDS Blog

Author: Brenda Cossman

Date Published: October 19th 2016 or earlier

Central Claims[edit | edit source]

Bill C-16 Does Not Criminalize Pronoun Misuse[edit | edit source]

The author claims it does not criminalize pronoun misuse, because the legal outcomes of the first infringement are as follows from the text article:

In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

If the speaker refuses to pay the fine, or participate in the appropriate outcome, they will go to Jail. Hence the Compelled Speech aspect.

The simple fact that there is a legally based Tribunal that defines a required action from the speaker after a trespassing of the act, makes it illegal and therefore criminal.

Bill C-16 Is Not The Most Serious Infringement on Free Speech in Canada[edit | edit source]

The author claims that Bill C-16 is not the most serious infringement on Free Speech in Canada below:

To return to the claim that Bill C-16 is the most serious infringement on free speech in Canada? Well, Professor Peterson is simply showing his ignorance around the history of free speech in Canada. There have been many endless limitations on free speech in Canada – many with which I disagree. Obscenity and indecency laws for example have long limited a broad range of literary, artistic and political expression in Canada – indeed far more so than our hate speech laws.

The Compelled Speech aspect of the legal outcomes of Bill C-16 makes it the first of it's kind in English Common Law, and as such the most serious infringement on Free Speech in Canada.

Errors in Criticism[edit | edit source]

Incorrect conclusion about the legal implications of the bill. Leads to incorrect claims in the rest of the article.

Truths in Criticism[edit | edit source]

Some of the facts are lifted directly from their sources.