what does cultural Marxism have to do with any of this?; the bill makes incitement of hatred not using the pronouns of the person, there is no list with all the pronouns and how about a video clip in a classroom about gender pronouns, would that get you reprimanded?
No reasonable interpretation of the law would lead to vocal racists shouting slurs in public without repercussion, yet imprisonment of any incel jackass who deadnames a transwoman.
-
-
i agree, it is "a criminal offence to incite hatred against any identifiable group where this is likely to result in a breach of the peace"; but they could not do that, meanwhile you do have to address to members of the trans community by their pronouns.
-
"you do have to address to members of the trans community by their pronouns." You don't (legally speaking)... and you can't be legally penalized for not doing that... Do I have to spell it in macaroni for you?
-
is misgendering "willfully promoting hate"?
-
If it's intentional, yes, and you think of it the same way you think about slurs. Is it occurring as part of a public demonstration? A public platform? If not, it's not subject to the law and bigots still have their legal safe space in private conversations.
-
now that is the stereotypical expected case...but what we got was Lindsay Shepherd in a classroom. i totally understand the reason of the law, they argue about the experiences of trans not cover in sex-discrimination, my point is that the modification is dangerously open to abuse
-
Lindsay Shepard? Come the fuck on, that was not a criminal charge brought up against a TA nor a legal invocation of the CHRA. That was a university employee summoned for an internal meeting. Which the university itself later apologized for.
-
ANY law is open to abuse if a court comes to an abusive ruling. That is not an argument against the law. "The modification" extends existing legal protection to a previously unprotected group. That's literally all it does,
-
But you and the rest of Peterson's acolytes oppose a law that protects people from discrimination on conspiratorial grounds of rampant, imaginary harmful enforcement of that law, with no regard for the importance of it in terms of what it actually gives to people who need it.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And if you think that that is how this section of legal code will be enforced, you're why we're going to bring gulags back :^)
-
Not that I'm saying that's what your argument was. Like I said, you've been necessarily vague this entire time, so I'm not quite sure exactly what you think the threat of C-16 is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.