Are ethnic jokes inherently wrong, racist, or offensive?
- This topic has 163 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
This is the situation as I see it, and it’s not a simple issue of JP vs. transgender rights, although that’s what it can look like. For JP, the C-16 bill about compulsory use of gender pronouns (is that right?) represents, as a case in point, a step too far, the inherent authoritarianism of hard-left politics.
Except he’s wrong about what the law says. It’s been pointed out to him by even the Canadian Bar Association.
He’s a traditional liberal. For transgender people, presumably, JP’s campaign represents just more abuse and discrimination, as per usual. So, it’s no wonder if there is hostility involved.
Except his stance isn’t even consistent. The ‘compelled speech’ issue doesn’t come up with transgender rights alone. It’s only more prevalent with transgender rights because gendered pronouns are a ubiquitous unlike references to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (etc.). But the issue comes down to grammar rather than an inconsistency in legal rights/ protections and their application.
It’s worth noting there is no law pertaining to pronouns. In his initial talks, Peterson was referencing the OHRC (which already had gender identity protections in place when he made his first video—that’s what he would have been held to when working for U of T). He read a section of the OHRC’s guidelines on non-discriminatory practices which cited failing to use someone’s preferred pronouns as possible discrimination.
In Peterson’s defence, reading that gives the impression that a person is required to refer to others by pronouns, and that those pronouns must be their preferred pronouns. But that interpretation makes little sense. The law doesn’t require a person to you pronouns ever. In the situation where you are referring to someone by pronouns, they should be their preferred pronouns.
If he had continued to read the guidance provided by the OHRC, he’d have seen that it also states using someone’s name is always respectful, and that ‘they’ can be used in cases where the pronoun is unknown. What about non-standard pronouns such as ‘xe’? The OHRC specifically stated that it had no guidance there.
Why wouldn’t if have guidance? The content Peterson was looking at wasn’t actually law. It’s guidance on how the law might be generally applied. People like employers or even the laity can read it to get a broad understanding of what non-discrimination may look like. This guidance is determined by relevant case histories and legal theory. At the time of Peterson’s first speech, there were hardly any cases to draw on specifically with regard to pronouns. I know one of the cases they used as a framework was Angela Dawson versus the Vancouver Police Department. I can’t remember what the other case was off the top of my head. In Dawson’s case, it only went as far as a tribunal in BC. The case involved Ms. Dawson being misgendered and being denied medical treatment. Even in that decision, not every case where Ms. Dawson was referred to by her deadname or the wrong pronouns was deemed discriminatory. Also, the pronouns in play were ‘he’ and ‘she’.
To date, I am not aware of any case regarding pronouns that has risen beyond the level of a tribunal. I am very confident not a single case has made it to the Supreme Court which would be the ultimate arbiter on constitutionality.
That said, Peterson’s claim didn’t necessarily require things escalating that far. I don’t recall his exact wording, but it was something along the lines of if a tribunal rules you did discriminate by refusing to use someone’s pronouns, you could be hit with a financial penalty/ ordered to pay remedy. If you refuse to pay, you could go to jail. Is that true? Well, let’s assume the first and second parts happen. You refuse to use someone’s preferred pronouns, and you are hit with paying financial remedy. If you feel the decision is wrong, the correct course of action is to appeal, not to simply not pay. However, that can be involved and expensive, so maybe you can’t pay. Even then, I believe you’re supposed to seek some sort of hardship something or other, but let’s set that aside. The person you are supposed to pay has to go through multiple involved steps to force you to pay, and none of them involve anyone being able to send you to jail. At least not in Ontario. I checked.
So what about this dad in BC (I know you already acknowledged this case, but it ties in to the above)? Isn’t that what Peterson was still warning about generally? You can’t step out of line on transgender rights issues or speak up or else they will throw you in jail? No. Bill C-16 pertains to discriminations in areas covered by The Code at the federal level (e.g. federally regulated employers). It also pertains to certain criminal matters which you cannot violate just by misgendering someone. The equivalent provincial legislation deals with the discrimination side of things, predominately. The young man wasn’t in court filing a discrimination claim based on his gender identity. He was there to be cleared to begin medical treatment. Canada already has an existing body of law pertaining to minors being able to consent to medical treatment. It has nothing to do with gender identity or transition apart from the fact that medical transition is a medical procedure. The gag order was also not some specific mechanism crafted with the emergence of transgender rights. There are plenty of cases where confidentiality, privacy or other sensitive information is kept private. There are also cases where a person is ordered to stop a specific activity that pertains to the case at hand.
To be honest, I could keep going. There are more things to point out. And that’s even staying away from the issues which are less clear cut, like ‘parental rights’. I mean, for me the issue is quite clear; however, in that case it’s not a strict matter of facts being correct or false.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.