LogFAQs > #879360677

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Jordan Peterson fights for Canada's soul against the ''Muh Feels'' government
Mal_Fet 05/18/17 5:21:32 PM #50:	LysistrataMedea posted... This can be true, but the spirit of Canadian free speech has always been about not offending people. We recently passed an anti-Islam discrimination measure, and there have been similar measures in the past that reflect this mentality. And a lawyer can easily argue that you're being compelled to not say the wrong thing, when you misgender someone, rather than being compelled to say something specific. It's true that C-16 is somewhat unique, maybe even draconian, but it's not an unusual direction for Canadian law. I'm not personally sure if I agree with Peterson about it being a 'dangerous path', but I'm also not closed off to his opinion either. How about the lack of any proof this measure will actually help anyone? If you're going to introduce a draconian law in the name of not producing offense, shouldn't there be some literature on the subject that shows it will actually do that? Bluster posted... http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading tl;dr you're objectively wrong The bill specifically refers to the OHRC for guidelines, and according to the OHRC website: Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. So actually you're wrong. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:879360677] in Jordan Pet... [t:75360701]...</cite> <quote><cite>LysistrataMedea posted...</cite> <quote>This can be true, but the spirit of Canadian free speech has always been about not offending people. We recently passed an anti-Islam discrimination measure, and there have been similar measures in the past that reflect this mentality. And a lawyer can easily argue that you're being compelled to not say the wrong thing, when you misgender someone, rather than being compelled to say something specific. It's true that C-16 is somewhat unique, maybe even draconian, but it's not an unusual direction for Canadian law. I'm not personally sure if I agree with Peterson about it being a 'dangerous path', but I'm also not closed off to his opinion either.</quote> How about the lack of any proof this measure will actually help anyone? If you're going to introduce a draconian law in the name of not producing offense, shouldn't there be some literature on the subject that shows it will actually do that? <cite>Bluster posted...</cite> <quote> http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading tl;dr you're objectively wrong</quote> The bill specifically refers to the OHRC for guidelines, and according to the OHRC website: Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. So actually you're wrong. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1