Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Because it's not what the law states or how the Charter works. Adding gender identity to the Charter has nothing to do with language. It means you can't discriminate against someone on the basis that they do not identify with their biological sex. That means things such as denying services, employment, etc.
So yeah, if we're going to call out the far left for distorting the facts, then why are we not holding Peterson to the same standards? The guy completely talked out of his ass on this topic and refuses to back off or come correct on it.
|
It also adds gender identity and expressions as a protected category for hate speech laws. So I wouldn't say "nothing to do with language." But nonetheless, after reading a bit more, I agree that it would seem there's a high bar for a court to step in under this part--basically violence.
Still, nobody knows for sure how C-16 would play out on free speech grounds until someone brings a case forward and tests it in court. It's fair to view Peterson as pushing hyperbole to an extent, but I wouldn't rule out the concern over unintended effects. Also why add those categories in the first place? I'm not a lawyer but it seems like the hate speech parts of the Charter prior to Bill C-16 would have been adequate enough to do what C-16 proponents are looking for anyways.
Also, beware the the whole Lindsay Shepherd thing; the professor and administrators questioning her suggested that her presentation of the Peterson video violated Bill C-16. Sure, some legal people will say they misinterpreted the Bill. Why not just make the Bill clear and add in an excerpt to eliminate the ambiguity around free speech? Surely, the Shepherd thing won't be the last instance of Bill C-16 coming up in these ways, rightly or wrongly.