Discussion in 'Serious' started by jrs77, 2 Dec 2017.
What is bill C-16? As far as I understand it, the bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.
Some university people misunderstanding what that C-16 thing is, doesn't seem very relevant to what C-16 actually is to be honest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not really. The sort of pontification and coddling that happens in university won't last too long once students get into the real world.
If you read the actual bill that's not what Nexxo just did, the bill is very short but it does say you'd need to provide evidence that an offense was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression, something that is clearly lacking from what Nexxo said, in fact I'd say trying to prove someone was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate would be extremely difficult unless your name happens to be Paul Golding or Jayda Fransen.
My colleagues and I who occasionally guest lecture at our local Universities often joke that University is a sheltered workplace for people who struggle with independent living in the real world.
I seem to remember there was a previous thread about this, maybe on the old forum. As I recall actually reading the bill cast things in a somewhat different light then too.
Even reading the wiki on it is enough. It affords trans people the same protections as other protected classes like gay people.
The stuff going on in universities is kind of weird. But very much gets a meh from me. Universities are basically just a bubble that exist outside the real world.They're the definition of ivory towers. Funny enough I've six years of university courses done (most recent graduation was last year) and I've never come across that kind of stuff.
Only if it can be demonstrated that it was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate.
Actually it clearly is a university issue, because it happened at university. I doubt that the authorities would even make it a thing, given the political comments on this case. The university has also apologised.
The university clearly blew the issue out of proportion, but it did not occur in a political vacuum. According to data from the Trans Pulse project, 20 per cent of trans people in Ontario have been physically or sexually assaulted, and 24 per cent have been harassed by police. As well, 96 per cent of trans Ontarians have been told that trans people are abnormal, and 25 per cent have been ridiculed by an emergency care provider. So although the university could have reflected a bit more on how to respond to some student complaints, it is a delicate subject that Lindsay Shepherd, in her role of teaching assistant, could arguably have reflected a bit more on in terms of how to handle as a debating subject in class.
It is a university issue as she didn't break the law.
So if the university stands by its actions it's wrong; if it apologises it's wrong. What do you want it to do?
Perhaps Jordan Peterson could temper his opinion by the understanding that what is a freedom of speech issue for him, is a freedom of discrimination and persecution issue for others. For a psychologist he seems remarkably one-dimensional and egocentric in his thinking --I suspect that he is drinking the same cool-aid that he accuses other intellectuals of drinking.
You're sort of flailing at everything here. You're conflating the things going on in universities with a law that merely extends its definition to include trans people. That change in Canadian law is not the end of free speech in Canada. I'm not sure why this extension has set you off since the same rules apply to racial minorities, gay people and other protected classes.
I think your interpretation that you can be done for calling a trans person by something other than their preferred gender term is incorrect as your are ignoring the element that purposeful malice has to be demonstrated. While people in universities might kick off about debates on trans rights, it would actually be difficult to secure a conviction under the law for merely discussing multiple view points on the topic.
There is an argument to be made that free speech is in danger on some university campuses, but that's about it and it is a separate discussion from the change in law. But as I say universities quickly become irrelevant once you have your piece of paper and are out the door. It's mostly storm in a tea cup stuff that is amplified by various online media.
Discrimination is not a matter of being called a few bad words on the play ground. It is being beaten up (occasionally, to death). It is being refused rental accommodation, or services. It is being denied job opportunities, and being objectified. It is being disadvantaged and disrespected in all sorts of ways.
Discrimination is actually a thing, and deserves to be challenged. You may argue that it's just life in the real world, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
Sounds like a lot of "probably's" there. The university overreacted, but that does not mean the human rights council would. University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman noted that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to universities, and that it would be highly unlikely for a court to find the teaching assistant’s actions were discriminatory under the comparable portions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
I'd like you to walk up to a black adult male and call them "boy". Nice, innocuous everyday language word, no? Let's see what reaction you get.
So let's agree that this is a bit complicated and delicate issue, about more than a few bad words.
The inmates are running the asylum, this bill - and the mindset behind it - is symptomatic of that.
Of course, students who are being subjected to, what essentially is a war on their minds at this point, males and females alike, will eventually leave university to become policy makers themselves.
Well, at least lunatics are not running the country. Oh, wait...
Different kind of lunatics Nexxo, and In many ways less dangerous too.
IDK what Canadian lawyers have said that's how it would work as ICBA to watch hours worth of videos in the hope of spotting the salient point, however i suspect they either misunderstanding the bill or mischaracterising it.
That's not to say their is'nt an issue with the way universities "police" free speech but what universities do in those areas tends to have a much higher bar in the real world, in other words what may get you called into a meeting to discus your use of pronouns in a university would be thrown out of court if you could find a lawyer silly enough to represent you.
My understanding is that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal would, if it ever got that far, only be able to say such actions were illegal not criminal, in other words they can't jail someone, all they can do is order to pay money, to correct the behaviour, order to go to training, etc.
And you would be jailed for contempt of court, not for calling someone by something other than their preferred pronoun. Not only that but before that law was extended to trans people if you were found in breach of it and refused to comply and refused to pay the fine you would again be found in contempt of court and jailed. So nothing has actually changed in that respect, the law has merely been extended to another class of people. All the same rules and consequences are there as before.
As an aside, I can't be the only one that, as a general rule of courtesy, addresses people as they prefer to be addressed. As in, if someone introduces themselves as James, I don't start calling them Jim, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jim-o, etc. It happens to me sometimes and I must say its irksome.
The dangerous lunatic is the one who is driving the bus, not the one who is ranting on the back seat.
And there's the crux: Jordan Peterson was asked if he would address a person by their preferred pronoun if he was so asked. His response was: "only if it isn't because they have some chip on their shoulder". Basically he was arguing in defence of his right to be an argumentative dick.
Separate names with a comma.