I think it's quite a bit alike.
Jordan Petersons initial rise to wider public exposure was due to Bill C16 in Canada (where the Yaniv case is also being heard). The bill could be split into two issues.
1) the issue that the bill, in effect, would compel certain forms of speech.
Which is a drastic departure from law in common law based jurisdictions where generally controls on speech exist to restrict what you can say and where you can say it rather then to compel you to say certain things under threat of legal penalty
I’m well aware what bill you were trying to discuss. While your comments were actually irrelevant to the law itself, you were parroting Peterson’s incorrect version of the law.
And for clarity, no it does not do that.
2) that the form the conpelled speech took was to force recognition of self identified gender identity in language used.
For the overwhelming majority of English speakers the words 'woman', 'she', 'her' etc relate to a human females. With the word 'female' denoting a biological woman in this context. (and vice versa for 'man' etc)
So in summary the issue Petersons raised was that the goverment was seeking to enact legislation that would force citizens to affirm an others subjective view of themselves and treat them as per that subjective view.
Only in as much as it forced people to treat trans in the same way they treat being gay or black. There is no forcing recognition at all, and in fact just not using the preferred pronoun would not get you a criminal record, as clarified by several lawyers and people with far more eloquence than me.
For example
“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”
The legislation is not what you think it is and was not what Peterson was claiming it was. Again, I’ll state that this legislation was a national version of legislation already present in most provincial government legislation already. If it was to be used for what you claim, people would have been arrested and jailed for at least a decade prior to the national legislation coming in to force.
Here’s a few experts explaining why you and Peterson are wrong. There should be no surprise here as he himself was politely dismissed as being wrong when he went in front of the lawmakers to argue against the bill.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
Unfortunately the misunderstanding of this legeslarion, propagated by Peterson and now by yourself has actually lead to issues in itself. For example here’s a National Post article (NP is the equivalent of the Telegraph, a centre right paper aimed at educated individuals, not some “socialist leftie” paper).
They clearly also stand on the side that the legislation does not mean what you think it means (nor what the teaching assistants boss thought it meant).
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationa...l-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination/amp
Which is the same issue in the Yaniv case where he is attempting to force acceptance of his self ID on other's and force them to treat him as a woman (despite all the objective evidence showing the opposite). If others are compelled to accept Yaniv as being a woman they cannot therefore refuse him service on the basis that they don't provide services to men who self ID as women.
Personally I think the tribunal in this particular case will dodge the monster the law has made for itself by ruling that the beauticians could refuse service on the basis that they don't wax penises and testicles (as they don't have the specific training and materials required) rather then the don't provide services to men in general.
There’s a big difference between refusing to wax a piece of male genitalia, whether on a man or a transgender woman, and someone who has had surgery to recreate female genitalia being refused. C-16 may put refusing to do the latter at the same level as refusing to wax a woman because they were black or gay...
There’s only one person parading ignorance here...
Again, the legislation was about putting trans on the same level as other other protected categories, such as sexual orientation, sex and ethnicity. This already existed in most provincial law anyway, so nothing really changed with it passing.
We all know how much you are against protected catalogues though, so I can see why you don’t like this. However stop spreading claptrap about it, all it does is cause problems when people take your definition as the actual legislation.
So the law here absolutely does prevent refusal of service based on the part of the beauticians refusing to accept Yaniv's gender identity unless they could show one of the limited exceptions applied.
As above I suspect the tribunal will dodge this one by stating that beauticians can decline service to people with penises and testicles regardless of whether they are 'men' or 'women' . So the basis of the discrimination isn't based on gender ID itself.
Pretty sure refusing to accept because the person has male genitalia is very different to refusing to accept due to being trans - as already said the latter would be treated in the same way as refusing because they were gay.
A rather pathetic attempt to discredit some of his views....
I haven't purchased a single one of his books nor sought him out for 'worship'. I disagree with him on some things but he clearly makes some points tht resonate with many.
Watching some YouTube videos and agreeing with some of his opinions is just that....
If you want some misplaced devotion to a cause you are probably better looking at thoose that follow the excesses of current self declared gender ID with a potentially unlimited range of self declared ID's
Nope, discrediting his views is very simple - listening to the people that actually understand the law does that. I’m discrediting the people that parrot the lies/mistruths. It’s pretty easy to find plenty of reliable links showing he’s wrong...
I’ll take your last comment as the real truth to all this. You may well know he’s wrong, but continue to parrot the misinformation as a way of trying to discredit legislation you don’t agree with - the furtherment of trans rights. Much like Trump, another person you appear to follow devotedly, he uses the same tactics - repeat lies and mistruths until people actually start to believe them...
Edit: and to quote your link on the Canadian Human right act.
The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Pretty clearly backing up the argument I was making, and what most people would consider a fundamental right.
