Politics in 2018

[FSTO]

This was on campus so largely invisible to most of the population. On the way home from work yesterday, I was listening to CBC covering the story. They gave air time to on individual who defended the right of the Professor to speak (and of the University to give him the space), but they also interviewed a woman who was against Peterson. Ok-fair enough to cover both sides.

She trotted out accusations of hate, marginalization, fear, incitement of violence, etc. Her argument seemed to centre around the idea that if the student body hear speakers like Johnson,  numbers of them will immediately be inspired to harrass and attack LGBTQ students on campus. She classified his presentation as "hate speech".

The interviewer asked her some good questions, such as "who, then, should be allowed to decide what speech is allowed?" and "doesn't Johnson have a right to express his opinion also?". Her answers (after some logical gymnastics) were both basically that people like Johnson should be shut down.

Now, I've never heard Johnson speak, and I'm only partially informed on his stance. I don't know what he said in Kingston. If he incited people to break the law or to commit violence, that is against the law. If he actively incited hatred, by saying that LGBTQ people are bad or dangerous or not deserving of rights only because of their sexual orientation, then that is also wrong. I have two gay adult children, and a good friend has a trans adult child. I don't want them hurt, or treated stupidly, by anybody.

But, if all Johnson did was say that he doesn't want to use certain types of pronouns, or he disagrees with the movement to change the language, or he thinks free speech is being stifled, then I say let him speak freely, and safely. Let him be challenged and debated: not heckled, shouted down or threatened.

Is that not the whole idea behind the free exchange of ideas which should characterize a university? Kudos to Queen's for letting him speak. Next time, allow a forum for civilized debate and let's see how that goes.

Have a listen to this and you can form your own opinion.

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/jordan-peterson-3

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=pbi]

Now, I've never heard Johnson speak, and I'm only partially informed on his stance. I don't know what he said in Kingston. If he incited people to break the law or to commit violence, that is against the law. If he actively incited hatred, by saying that LGBTQ people are bad or dangerous or not deserving of rights only because of their sexual orientation, then that is also wrong. I have two gay adult children, and a good friend has a trans adult child. I don't want them hurt, or treated stupidly, by anybody.

But, if all Johnson did was say that he doesn't want to use certain types of pronouns, or he disagrees with the movement to change the language, or he thinks free speech is being stifled, then I say let him speak freely, and safely. Let him be challenged and debated: not heckled, shouted down or threatened.

[/quote]

As someone who voted Liberal and sorta left wing (maybe?) it would be really interesting if you listened to some of his speeches and see if you agree with him or if you think he's inciting hate.  I've listened to a few of his speeches and I've never heard anything hateful or spiteful. The whole premise Ive seen is that he feels the government shouldn't try to force him to use made up pronouns, or especially face legal consequences if he doesn't.

See if he deserves people smashing on windows or, as we see in other videos, getting removed from his speech and trashing video and sound equipment on the way out.

 

[pbi]

Have a listen to this and you can form your own opinion.

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/jordan-peterson-3

Thanks. I will do that as soon as I get a chance. Looks like it's two hours long. The first few bits of what I heard sound reasonable enough. Cheers.

 

[pbi]

As someone who voted Liberal and sorta left wing (maybe?) it would be really interesting if you listened to some of his speeches and see if you agree with him or if you think he's inciting hate.  I've listened to a few of his speeches and I've never heard anything hateful or spiteful. The whole premise Ive seen is that he feels the government shouldn't try to force him to use made up pronouns, or especially face legal consequences if he doesn't.

See if he deserves people smashing on windows or, as we see in other videos, getting removed from his speech and trashing video and sound equipment on the way out.

AAAHH!!! you're bumper-stickering me!!

OK...just kidding

As noted, I will better inform myself.  I expect that he is not the devil that some these far-left types are making him out to be. I agree completely about the stupid disruptive behaviour.

 

[FSTO]

Thanks. I will do that as soon as I get a chance. Looks like it's two hours long. The first few bits of what I heard sound reasonable enough. Cheers.

I listen to Rogan when I walk to work. All his podcasts are at least 2hrs long and his guest range from Alex Jones (he got him drunk) to some hard core lefties. You get to really find out about a person when they are chatting for a long time. Thats why I hate the 5 min panel shows.

 

[Journeyman]

There's always  a silver lining.
Dick Fadden also spoke at Queen's yesterday -- talking about threats to Canada, security, intelligence... all those nasty, oppressive things.  anic: 

But the rent-an-offended mob was too focused on Peterson to notice.  ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Do you know if Dick's speech is available online? I would love to see if he addressed the PM's drawing a top civil servant to the press just to CYA.

 

[Good2Golf]

There's always  a silver lining.
Dick Fadden also spoke at Queen's yesterday -- talking about threats to Canada, security, intelligence... all those nasty, oppressive things.  anic: 

But the rent-an-offended mob was too focused on Peterson to notice.  ;D

Was Daniel Jean in the audience taking notes?

 

[Journeyman]

Do you know if Dick's speech is available online? I would love to see if he addressed the PM's drawing a top civil servant to the press just to CYA.

It's not.  He seemed to have 6-8 bullet points that he wanted to address, then took questions. 

There was no mention of, or attendance by, Daniel Jean. 

 

[ballz]

She trotted out accusations of hate, marginalization, fear, incitement of violence, etc. Her argument seemed to centre around the idea that if the student body hear speakers like Johnson,  numbers of them will immediately be inspired to harrass and attack LGBTQ students on campus. She classified his presentation as "hate speech".

Indeed. That is exactly what the radical wings do... the left-wing, however, seems to be very successful at it for some reason. It's amazing how many people think this is what Jordan Petersen is and does based only on what they've heard the crazies shouting. It's actually quite amazing that they can could defame him given how what he says isn't even very controversial.

Now, I've never heard Johnson speak, and I'm only partially informed on his stance. I don't know what he said in Kingston. If he incited people to break the law or to commit violence, that is against the law. If he actively incited hatred, by saying that LGBTQ people are bad or dangerous or not deserving of rights only because of their sexual orientation, then that is also wrong. I have two gay adult children, and a good friend has a trans adult child. I don't want them hurt, or treated stupidly, by anybody.

But, if all Johnson did was say that he doesn't want to use certain types of pronouns, or he disagrees with the movement to change the language, or he thinks free speech is being stifled, then I say let him speak freely, and safely. Let him be challenged and debated: not heckled, shouted down or threatened.

Is that not the whole idea behind the free exchange of ideas which should characterize a unversity? Kudos to Queen's for letting him speak. Next time, allow a forum for civilized debate and let's see how that goes.

There is some confusion about the pronoun issue. Petersen *never* had a trans student in his class whom he refused to call by certain pronouns. That simply did not happen. The university administration had pushed out direction, due to the legal advice they received regarding new legislation, that alternate pronouns should/will be used. It is the compelled use of certain language that he fought against. Which is telling... it wasn't good enough that he said, if asked in a cordial manner, he would probably use the pronouns... he must support the government in compelling people's language or else he's *insert bumper sticker label here*.

But now, due to the nature of these conversations, he's branched off into other topics such as gender equality, economic inequality, etc... And those are much more interesting than the pronoun issue. He's a clinical psychologist and from that offers a lot of really interesting perspectives backed up by very interesting data in those fields.

The ironic thing about it all is, he has made it very clear he thinks "alt-right" ideologies are just awful and claims to have pulled thousands of disillusioned young men away from going down that road (both through his profession and now through his... new activities). Meanwhile, the radical left-wing people trying to assassinate his character by framing him as a Nazi are driving more and more disillusioned young men towards radical right-wing ideologies every day.

 

[ModlrMike]

It is the compelled use of certain language that he fought against. Which is telling... it wasn't good enough that he said, if asked in a cordial manner, he would probably use the pronouns... he must support the government in compelling people's language or else he's *insert bumper sticker label here*

We're going to tell you how to speak, and we'll punish you if you don't.

Sounds pretty Orwellian to me. 1984 anyone?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Doubleplusgood post, ModlrMike.  :nod:

 

[FJAG]

We're going to tell you how to speak, and we'll punish you if you don't.

Sounds pretty Orwellian to me. 1984 anyone?

The Ontario Human Rights Commission's position on this issue is currently set out on their web page here:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Note that the OHRC includes "gender identity" and "gender expression" as protected rights.  The powers under the OHRC are:

Infringement prohibited
9 No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 9

. . .

Orders of Tribunal:  applications under s. 34
45.2 (1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act.  2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Orders under par. 3 of subs. (1)
(2) For greater certainty, an order under paragraph 3 of subsection (1),

(a) may direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices; and

(b) may be made even if no order under that paragraph was requested.  2006, c. 30, s. 5.

. . .

Penalty
46.2 (1) Every person who contravenes section 9 or subsection 31 (14), 31.1 ( or 44 (13) or an order of the Tribunal is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000. 2006, c. 30, s. 8.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The ironic thing about it all is, he has made it very clear he thinks "alt-right" ideologies are just awful and claims to have pulled thousands of disillusioned young men away from going down that road (both through his profession and now through his... new activities). Meanwhile, the radical left-wing people trying to assassinate his character by framing him as a Nazi are driving more and more disillusioned young men towards radical right-wing ideologies every day.

100% and, there is now even an upstart cottage industry for therapists helping young white men counselling them that it is ok be white, and they have nothing to be ashamed or guilty for.
In this rat race life that has been created by technology and instant flash mob rage, more and more people just want to power down and live a quiet life and get along with everyone. Not very many would be happy if they were fully aware that there are people out in the world looking to collect a pay cheque by exploiting the OHRC, and I am hoping the HRT's are alive to that sort of behaviour. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks. I will do that as soon as I get a chance. Looks like it's two hours long. The first few bits of what I heard sound reasonable enough. Cheers.

pbi, perhaps a shorter example showing Jordan's unedited responses to Cathy Newman regarding his response to transsexual support activists (re: the use of trans pronoun, issue):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEJ1QHu-KEQ

For those interested, an interesting post-interview analysis/self-analysis with Petersen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXkLaZLSzgM

I think you will find that agreement with Petersen or not, he is a very logical and non-personalizing debater.

Regards,
G2G

 

[Cloud Cover]

Lots of valuable court time being used up by these issues:
http://canlii.ca/t/h3qw7

 

[FJAG]

Lots of valuable court time being used up by these issues:
http://canlii.ca/t/h3qw7

An interesting case. Good judge. Solid decision.

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

That poor judge. I can't imagine having to deal with that day in and day out.  I agree it was a solid decision, especially the awarding of costs. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That Case does not illustrate your point Whiskey601.

It is a Motion to change child custody's case and one factual point amongst many others to demonstrate that the mother is not properly caring for or capable of caring for the development of the child whose custody is at issue is the fact that she (not the child) claims that to refer to the child in a "misgendered" way is the cause of the child misbehaviour at school. Those type of motions always end up having many types of human behaviour that can only be described as "petty" used as evidence against one person or the other. It does not make the matter overall a waste of valuable court time, especially if it ends up in a decision that is in the best interest of the child.

The judge concluded that, in view of all the facts, it is in fact the mother who is the problem for that child, and gives the full custody to the father from now on.

I can tell you that, it is a lot more difficult for fathers to get full custody of children than for mothers (an interesting factual situation that is rarely alluded to by "equal-rights" and "social justice" warriors), so her behaviour must have been (and if you read the whole case, is) pretty fu...-up to get that result.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission's position on this issue is currently set out on their web page here:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Note that the OHRC includes "gender identity" and "gender expression" as protected rights.  The powers under the OHRC are:

 

And that, FJAG, is the reason that certain people from Western Canada (we won't name him - OK, its Ezra Levant ;D) have referred to the various provincial human rights commission's investigators as the "Thought Police" and the Commission themselves as "Kangaroo courts".

It is amazing how many people fail to grasp that you cannot have a society that has, simultaneously, freedom of speech and a right to protected feelings and self-respect (whatever that second one, self-respect, could possibly be since, if it is "self" then it is internalized and hearing comments from the someone else should not affect it - such external comment if it would affect the respect for a person in the public in general would affect dignity, not self-respect))

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That poor judge. I can't imagine having to deal with that day in and day out.  I agree it was a solid decision, especially the awarding of costs.

The awarding of costs as was done is the normal standard for Ontario courts. Nothing to see here.