Canada, pronouns, and compelled speech, yes, again

[icehorse]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

 

[SomeRandom]

In fairness isn’t most polite interaction compelled speech anyway?
Especially where business is concerned.
My work has a policy that is somewhat similar to this where if you go out of your way to misgender a person it’s treated as harassment. Like freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. You can’t go up to your employee and say anything you want to them without consequence. Legal or otherwise

Also how hard is it to have manners? Geez
It’s not like I will go up to a woman and deliberately say,
“Good morning, sir.”
If I’m corrected I apologise. It’s really no skin off my nose

 

[epronovost]

Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

That's not exactly true. What was deemed illegal was the act of refusing obstinately to refer to an employee with their favored pronouns which then lead to an altercation between the employee and the supervisor (who was also doing his best to antagonize the employee in question by using other strictly female gendered terms) and the subsequent dismissal of the employee. They then sued for illegal dismissal and were found correct. That the supervisor did discriminate against them and were found responsible for the altercation that lead to the dismissal. In essence, yes, that would mean that the supervisor should have addressed his employee with their preferred pronouns or at the very least make an half-assed attempt at being polite towards them instead of being willfully confrontational and insulting. You can't insult people and then fire them when they bite back; that's clearly just harassment and abuse.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm at a loss, don't know what to make of it. It is indeed a case of the government compelling him to recognize her transgender status in his speech, so the government is indeed telling him what to think or to lie about what he thinks. Its not a situation in which everyone can be a winner unless they all say "Sorry" and let it go, but that may not be possible. Somebody has to lose.

 

[icehorse]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

 

[epronovost]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

How is it not about being respectful toward your employees? Of course referring to someone by another pronouns and gendered "terms of affection" is impolite. This could of course cause conflict and then lead to the dismissal of one of the party; in that case, the victim. You can't give a person a "free pass" to insult their employees "based on their belief"; that would be a massive can of worms that would basically make harassment in the work place legal.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

All words are arbitrary.
Sorry couldn’t resist.
But seriously if you’re at work and your employee says hey don’t call me by my full name instead use my nickname. Anyone who refuses and goes out of their way to use the full name is just being a jerk for no real reason. After all, a nickname is arbitrary too.
If you go out of your way to be a jerk you don’t get to cry victim when there are consequences. Anyone who’s ever worked in retail is compelled to be respectful of others arbitrary pronouns or risk disciplinary action (being polite to customers.)

 

[Stevicus]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Based on the article, the manager seemed like a jerk. Why not just be kind and respectful?

I mean, we all have bad days at work from time to time, but there doesn't appear to be any excuse for this. I don't know what this "tribunal" is all about, but the employee in question should get their job back.

As for whether it's illegal or not, I'm not sure about that. I don't know that it should be outlawed, but workers have a right to not be harassed at work. If someone wants to use the wrong pronouns on their own time, that's different.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

The link won’t load

But I don’t think people should purposely offend others, from sheer meanness

 

[Kenny]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

And I don't think that is the end of the road, either.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people.

No, he argued against a dramatized and misrepresented version of the bill. The bill included adding protection for transgendered people to existing legislation, so it was neither new nor what JBP claimed it was:

Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained

Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns

Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns.

Legal experts disagree.

Bill C-16, currently before Canada's parliament, prohibits discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act on the basis of gender identity and expression. The bill covers the federal government and federally regulated industries like banks or airlines. It also extends hate speech provisions under Canada's criminal code to transgendered people.

"I don't think any legal expert would say using an inappropriate pronoun, while not something that respects the human rights of trans people, would ever result in a criminal conviction," said Kyle Kirkup, a law professor with the University of Ottawa who specialises in gender identity and sexuality law.

But Dr Peterson could face sanction under Ontario's human rights code, which extended protection to trans people in 2012.

Penalties range from fines and damages to mandatory anti-discrimination training.

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

How many people have been formally prosecuted for not abiding by "compelled speech" since Bill C-16 passed? Has Canada turned into some tyranny? Last I checked, it was still one of the world's most prosperous and free countries.

Jordan Peterson has a specific agenda that, whether through dishonesty or actual ignorance, he sometimes pushes in spite of what the facts actually are. Compare how often he rails against various caricatures of "cultural Marxism" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or something like Bill C-16 to how often he does--or doesn't, more accurately--bring up the rising tide of white supremacism, theocratic politics, and xenophobia in multiple Western countries. For all of his supposed concern for "free speech," he definitely seems to overlook major threats to freedom.

Parenthetically, I find it quite bizarre and inconsistent that many fans of JBP (I'm talking generally, not about you, @icehorse) claim to oppose "professional victims" and label various groups as such while endorsing Peterson's political views, which actually include fabricated victimhood (e.g., by Bill C-16) and alarmism. It seems to me an example of political agenda and propaganda obscuring rational thinking and factual accuracy.

 

[Nakosis]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

It'll teach them business owners to be less overt about their discrimination.

Using government enforcement is not the way to win over hearts and minds but whatever makes you feel good I suppose.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

How is this any more an instance of "compelled speech" than fining an employer for repeatedly and insistently calling an employee, say, "idiot" or "little kid"? I don't know about you, but I think insults are largely dependent on the listener's preferences, so if an employer goes out of their way to refuse to be respectful toward an employee's personal boundaries when those don't harm anyone else and then fires said employee, I think that could be reasonable grounds for fining the employer.

I would support the same penalty against any employer who frequently referred to a male employee as "she" or a female one as "he." This isn't exclusive to trans and non-binary people, and it shouldn't be viewed as such.

 

[We Never Know]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

I read it and I'm confused. Is the person M to F or F to M transgender?


I ask because "Manager Brian Gobelle “persistently referred” to the employee with “she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like ‘sweetheart’, ‘honey'” – and owing to the pink hair dye job – “‘pinky’.”

If M to F I would think she/her would be acceptable while "sweetheart, honey and pinky would not be.

If F to M then none would be acceptable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've brought this up before. Several years ago in Canada Jordan Peterson argued quite publicly against proposals in Canada that would compel Canadians to use the preferred pronouns of gender fluid(?) people. Sometimes I agree with JP, sometimes I don't. So let's not conflate the message with the messenger

I've heard from some more progressive Canadians (and non-Canadians), that JP was being an alarmist, that of course nothing like compelled speech was going to happen.

The following article appears to me to be an example of JP being prophetic. Indeed, it would appear that NOT using someone's preferred pronouns can be illegal in Canada. ARGH !!!!

Tribunal Declares it a Human Rights Offense to Not Use 'Preferred Pronouns' - Women Are Human

I really hate the 'woke' left isle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is NOT about politeness. I'm all for politeness.

This is about being forced to use arbitrary words on pain of breaking the law.

Even worse they referred to a tribunal.

 

[Koldo]

How is this any more an instance of "compelled speech" than fining an employer for repeatedly and insistently calling an employee, say, "idiot" or "little kid"? I don't know about you, but I think insults are largely dependent on the listener's preferences, so if an employer goes out of their way to refuse to be respectful toward an employee's personal boundaries when those don't harm anyone else and then fires said employee, I think that could be reasonable grounds for fining the employer.

I would support the same penalty against any employer who frequently referred to a male employee as "she" or a female one as "he." This isn't exclusive to trans and non-binary people, and it shouldn't be viewed as such.

That's not exactly true. What was deemed illegal was the act of refusing obstinately to refer to an employee with their favored pronouns which then lead to an altercation between the employee and the supervisor (who was also doing his best to antagonize the employee in question by using other strictly female gendered terms) and the subsequent dismissal of the employee. They then sued for illegal dismissal and were found correct. That the supervisor did discriminate against them and were found responsible for the altercation that lead to the dismissal. In essence, yes, that would mean that the supervisor should have addressed his employee with their preferred pronouns or at the very least make an half-assed attempt at being polite towards them instead of being willfully confrontational and insulting. You can't insult people and then fire them when they bite back; that's clearly just harassment and abuse.

I understand that using the wrong pronoun can be utterly unsettling, to say the least. But here are my questions to you both: Where do you draw the line? Must others use a pronoun I have created myself out of thin air, for instance? Must others call me 'Your Highness' if I find it the only appropiate pronoun to refer to me? By 'must' I most certainly mean as in 'compelled by law'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well I see Canada now slipping down the freedom index.

 

[epronovost]

I understand that using the wrong pronoun can be utterly unsettling, to say the least. But here are my questions to you both: Where do you draw the line? Must others use a pronoun I have created myself out of thin air, for instance? Must others call me 'Your Highness' if I find it the only appropiate pronoun to refer to me? By 'must' I most certainly mean as in 'compelled by law'.

The line is easy to draw, it has already been drawn. Are you a class protected by the Canadian Bill of rights? If yes, people must respect that identity and offer you the same dignity than any other groups. Can I force people to call me "Your Highness"? No, "pretend monarchs" aren't a protected class of people in the Bill of Rights. Transgender people and non-binary people are. We have collectively decided that these people are our equal and deserve respect and dignity like everybody else, thus harassing, slandering or appealing to hatred against them is illegal.

 

[epronovost]

Well I see Canada now slipping down the freedom index.

This has been in law for over five years and it's not the first case like it either. In the meantime, Canada freedom index has increased. It turns out that the liberty of people to insult other people didn't make society more free or fair. A shocking revelation I know.