Comments by "" (@TentaclePentacle) on "Gender Pronouns and the Free Speech War (Pt. 1) | Jordan Peterson | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Caalamus yeah he was alot more optimistic in the beginning, and now you can see the tiredness in his eyes.
    12
  2. The problem is its life destroying, they will not lock you up. They will fine you, and they will go to your job and require your employer to fire you because according to this new law, your employer is responsible for what you say. When you refuse to pay the fine, they will take it by force. Only when you are too poor to pay, and you continue to offend, then they will finally lock you up. Its death by a thousand cuts.
    5
  3. well those sjws have redefined what term of harm. Now words can harm you, your hurt feelings is a harm. So if your feelings are hurt, the one who hurt your feelings have just committed a hate crime.
    3
  4. Great talk, but your sound quality is atrocious.
    2
  5. +Bea Smith you just gave a US definition of hate crime. In canada a hate crime is when you violates one of the human right codes. When you discriminate against one of the declared protected class of people you are committing a hate crime. Just this year, a comedian, made fun of some disable kid in one of his show. And he was brought up on hate crime charges by the human rights court, and was fined. So making fun of the disable is considered a hate crime in canada, because the disabled is considered a protected class in canada. So by adding trans and their gender expressions into that protected class. Not using their pronouns, or if you make fun of them is also going to be considered a hate crime.
    2
  6. +Bea Smith Oh that's so much better, they'll just take all your stuff away. When I say they will lock you up, I don't mean a jail sentence, but they will bring you to the police station and hold you for a day or half a day. Its like if you have alot of parking tickets stacked up, and you get stop, they will bring you in. They won't put in in a real jail, they'll just take everything you own away and make you homeless. I would rather be in jail, at least you get fed and housed.
    1
  7. +Bea Smith They would if you don't show up to their human rights court.
    1
  8. +Bea Smith Not using a gender neutral pronouns are considered a hate crime, and you can certainly be arrested for a hate crime.
    1
  9. +Bea Smith The only reason why UofT came down on Peterson is because the new law requires employers be responsible for what their employee says. So it has something to do with the law. Just watch the Peterson debate, they explain the law adds gender identity and expression as a protected class to the human rights code. If your gender identity/expression is that for people to call you Ze, then that's gender pronouns. If you violated that expression it is considered a hate crime.
    1
  10. +Bea Smith Bill c16 triggered the debate, but its not bill c16 by itself as the problem. Bill c16 is only a few lines, that seems innocuous. The problem is within the human rights code which bill c16 amends. The requirement for employers to police what their employees say, the giving of offense to a protected class is a hate crime (which translates to the use of preferred pronouns). The problem part is in the human rights code. Furthermore, Peters is a psychologist, he would know more about gender expressions than you a nobody.
    1
  11. +Regless0000 Yes that comedian was fined 42k plus court costs for making fun of some disable kid. The US might protect against none violent hate speech, but Canada doesn't, that's why its very dangerous to add in extra protected class into the canadian law.
    1
  12. +Bea Smith it was classified as hate speech for making fun of that kid. hate speech is a form of hate crime.
    1
  13. +Bea Smith the human rights court doesn't deal with civil claims. The fine imposed doesn't go to the kid that was made fun of, it goes to the government. Its not one party suing the other, its the government going after you. A violation of the human rights code is considered a hate crime. The comedian was charged with a hate speech, that was the official charge. Bill c16 adds gender expression as part of the protected class. Ofcouse something has change, it means you can no longer make fun of gender expressions. If that comedian made fun of some trans kid, then the human rights court can fine him also under bill c16.
    1
  14. +Bea Smith I was wrong about who gets the so call damages portion of the fine. The human rights commission gets the court costs. I stand corrected on that. But that doesn't change the natural of the human rights commision. It isn't a civil court, it doesn't follow any of the civil court procedures. Nuisance laws suits in a civil court will be thrown out, but not in the human rights commision. it is a quasi extra judicial entity. It doesn't even hold its hearings in a court room, and yet it have the weight of law behind it.
    1
  15. +Bea Smith It is not a civil law when the government themselves can be the complainer who brings the suit. The human rights commission doesn't fall under the normal channels of a civil law suit. is that understandable for you?
    1
  16. +Bea Smith In a civil court you are responsible to bring the suit, you have to hire a lawyer, you have to collect and present all the evidence. In a human rights commission, they are the investigators. The commission acts as the police, some one complain to the commission, the commission do all the investigations, they will sue on behave of the complainer. And the format of the sue is not in any court room, the decider of the suit is another body call the human rights tribunal, which works closely with the human rights commission. Its very incenstrous. There is a case in Canada where the a reporter named Ezra Levant. Who made the statement saying the human rights commision is crazy. And he was sue again by the human rights commissions. The complainer was one of the human rights commission's prosecutor. But the case was not that Ezra Levant said something mean about the prosecutor, the case brought forward was that Ezra Levant say that the commission was crazy. So in essence the commission was suing Levant, but they just put the complainer as one of their prosecutors. http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ezra-levant-crazy-prosecutions
    1