Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
|
That's an awesome blog post and really does a great job of going through the theoretical problem with the legislation.
However, I think he answers his own concern with the quote from
National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerks’ International Union et al. - in that case the Labour Relations Board imposed orders that compelled speech, which the Supreme Court held they had no power to do.
The basis for assuming that not referring to someone by their preferred pronoun constitutes discrimination comes from a Q and A session with the OHRC, which has absolutely no legislative force behind it whatsoever. If they proceed in that direction I would expect them to be slapped down rather quickly. That being said, idiocy of that sort is hardly new territory for the OHRC, so if you want to castigate them for that as you might for many other policies they put out, I've no objection.
Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled by what human rights tribunals have become in this country. But I think the alarmism over the supposedly totalitarian implications of this bill, which Peterson seems to treat as inevitable, is overblown.