Canada...

[edwardmurphy]

I knew exactly what I was talking about. You say the Quran tells Muslims to conquer the world. I say that it might, but that it doesn't really matter since 99% of Muslims don't seem interested.

See, I understand what you're saying. I've been here for years and I've heard that argument many times. And I think it's silly.

[RickD]

I knew exactly what I was talking about. You say the Quran tells Muslims to conquer the world. I say that it might, but that it doesn't really matter since 99% of Muslims don't seem interested.

See, I understand what you're saying. I've been here for years and I've heard that argument many times. And I think it's silly.

It's really not a big deal if YOU think it's silly. But we are seeing what happens when others feel as you do, and these violent Muslims are infiltrating Europe, and the US. How many people have to die before you stop thinking it's silly, and start believing it's really true?

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/ ... C-16_1.PDF

The issue is, and any lawyer can tell you this, with vagueness comes litigation, excessive litigation.
Now, why on earth would anyone consider hateful a teacher refusing to use a pronoun what doesn't exist in the English language?
Or hateful someone refusing to call a man "her"?
You may disagree, yes of course 100% BUT it is not hateful to NOT do something that doesn't make any sense.

Hate speech, what constitutes hate speech, mast be made CLEAR, CONCISE and NOT subject to interpretation.

[edwardmurphy]

Now, why on earth would anyone consider hateful a teacher refusing to use a pronoun what doesn't exist in the English language?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not hateful in the eyes of the law.

Or hateful someone refusing to call a man "her"?

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not hateful in the eyes of the law, either.

You may disagree, yes of course 100% BUT it is not hateful to NOT do something that doesn't make any sense.

Whether or not something makes sense is pretty subjective, but but the law sets a very high bar for what constitutes hate speech.

Hate speech, what constitutes hate speech, mast be made CLEAR, CONCISE and NOT subject to interpretation.

That's an impossibly high bar, the law is as clear and concise as it can be.

[PaulSacramento]

And yet Ed:

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

Controversies[edit]
On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Fear and the Law".[9][14] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposes to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well to the list of identifiable groups whom it is illegal under the Criminal Code to promote genocide or publicly incite hatred against.[15]

He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the criminal code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by their preferred pronoun.[16] Furthermore, he argued that the new amendments paired with section 46.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code would make it possible for employers and organizations to be subject to punishment under the code if any employee or associate says anything that can be construed "directly or indirectly" as offensive, "whether intentionally or unintentionally."[17] Other academics challenged Peterson's interpretation of C-16.[16]

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty and labour unions, and critics accused Peterson of fostering a climate of hate.[9] Protests erupted on campus, some including violence, and the controversy attracted international media attention.[18][19] In November, the National Post published an op-ed by Peterson in which he elaborated on his opposition to the bill and explained why he publicly made a stand against it. He stated:

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[20]

In response to the controversy, the HR department of the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting that free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination. Peterson speculated that these warnings letters were leading up to formal disciplinary action against him, but in December the university assured him that he would retain his professorship, and in January 2017 he returned to teach his psychology class at the University of Toronto.[9]

In February 2017, Maxime Bernier, candidate for leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, stated that he shifted his position on Bill C-16 after meeting with Peterson and discussing it.[21] Peterson's analysis of the bill has also been frequently cited by senators who are opposed to its passage.[22]

In May, Peterson spoke against Bill C-16 at a senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs hearing. He was one of 24 witnesses who were invited to speak on the bill.[22]

[edwardmurphy]

Yeah, I read that a few days ago. The general consensus among Canadian legal scholars seems to be that Peterson has some pretty strong opinions, but not much legal basis for them. All the bill does is add "gender identity or expression" to the existing law. The bar for hate crimes is still pretty high, and refusing to use the prefix "zher" doesn't even come close.

[PaulSacramento]

The bar is high, yes BUT you see why he has concerns right?

See the reaction from the transgender community?

The series of videos drew criticism from transgender activists, faculty and labour unions, and critics accused Peterson of fostering a climate of hate.

[edwardmurphy]

Sure, I see why he has concerns. But the question for me isn't whether or not anybody has concerns about anything, it's whether or not their concerns are realistic. His don't seem to be. As far as I can tell he's a culture warrior looking to gin up a controversy by painting the law in the scariest terms possible, and wildly overreaching.

As far as the transgender community criticizing his videos, of course they are. Wouldn't you if you were in their position?

[PaulSacramento]

Sure, I see why he has concerns. But the question for me isn't whether or not anybody has concerns about anything, it's whether or not their concerns are realistic. His don't seem to be. As far as I can tell he's a culture warrior looking to gin up a controversy by painting the law in the scariest terms possible, and wildly overreaching.

As far as the transgender community criticizing his videos, of course they are. Wouldn't you if you were in their position?

Well, no obviously I wouldn't agree with redefining common sense.
You ask of his concerns are realistic and I ask, did you read my post?
He was accused of hate speech and the HR department did this:

In response to the controversy, the HR department of the University of Toronto sent Peterson two letters of warning, one noting that free speech had to be made in accordance with human rights legislation and the other adding that his refusal to use the preferred personal pronouns of students and faculty upon request could constitute discrimination.

I would say that his concerns are realistic since, even before it became law, it almost happened to him !

[B. W.]

Well ya know...

I think Ed needs to move to Canada...


-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

You're just jealous that I have places to go on the off chance that the US becomes too socially conservative for my taste. You, on the other hand, are stuck. All of the wealthy, stable countries are progressive, and all of the conservative theocracies are Muslim. You hate those guys worse than progressives, so I guess you're out of luck. On the bright side, you can always build yourself a bunker.

[B. W.]

You're just jealous that I have places to go on the off chance that the US becomes too socially conservative for my taste. You, on the other hand, are stuck. All of the wealthy, stable countries are progressive, and all of the conservative theocracies are Muslim. You hate those guys worse than progressives, so I guess you're out of luck. On the bright side, you can always build yourself a bunker.

At least we will have a country, so, yes, by all means pack your bags and leave then... go to the wealthy, stable countries that are progressive, like Venezuela, or any other countries that will collapse under the weight of Islamic migration...

We do not want your rebellion and hate, bigotry, entitlement slavery, glorying racism, victim-hood, treasonous mindset here in America...

P.S Oh yes many of these great wealthy, stable progressive countries, enjoyed the umbrella of protection from the USA so they could practice their socialism without having to foot the bill for their military during the cold war era... Things have changed now...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

You think Canada's going to collapse because they made it a crime to advocate for the eradication of the transgender population? Whatever you say, Chicken Little.

You know I didn't mean Venezuela. Don't be obtuse.

My rebellion, hate, bigotry, glorification of racism, victimhood, and treasonous mindset? Stuff like this is why I don't take buffoons like you seriously. You and I disagree about some economic and social issues, but rather than ever, ever, ever making a reasonable, rational, fact-based point you just make absurdly over the top accusations.

And regarding that last paragraph, it contains more anger, ignorance, and misconceptions than I have time to deal with. I'm just going to point out that upholding the NATO alliance is in our interest, and destabilizing Europe might play well with Trump's angriest, least informed supporters, but it's not good policy. That's a fact that every single President since Truman has recognized.

[Hortator]

Canada moves forward with bill C-16

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canad ... -pronouns/

Not calling Bill with a beard stubble, broad shoulders, 6'0, a strong jaw and muscles "Sophie" could lead to litigation. Well done, Kanada.

[edwardmurphy]

Pretty sure that's a lie...