Now illegal to use wrong pronouns in Canada; Bill C16 passes

[freaky]

omg...that means kids will have to memorize the hundreds of pronouns. It took me a year to get used to using just 2 pronouns and I still fuck up from time to time. Guess I'm going to jail...

 

[IDL]

If you say you won't refer to trannies with their preferred pronoun, which can change daily, then yes you may be looking at a substantial fine.

That would be impolite, you see. We need Big Brother to intervene with a big stick when there is a disagreement over such things, to make sure the party line is firmly toed.

Re-education camps for all those who deviate.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Canada is an European country on the wrong side of the Atlantic.

Brilliant move.

 

[Thunderflash500]

That would be impolite, you see. We need Big Brother to intervene with a big stick when there is a disagreement over such things, to make sure the party line is firmly toed.

I don't see how a Canadian Citizen wouldn't be justified in committing violence over this. There really aren't many more steps involved In setting up a tyrannical government. They are on the line. Personally I think they've crossed it.

 

[ripskater]

I was overloaded by the rapid fire progressive cliches. Like flash bangs going off. I need a moment to recover.

Lol

 

[SLUG1186]

I think it was just that they didn't know much about what it was they were passing, and aren't familiar with the underlying issues that Peterson was talking about.

That 'I'm a free speech guy' was cringe worthy, trying to making a case about 'feelings' but it's obvious that Petersons points couldn't be reduced to such trivialities.

So to me, it just seems like they hadn't put much thought into it, and they were talking to Peterson who has probably put thausands of hours and a professional background into it.

They definitely haven't put much thought into it, that's for sure.

 

[Shoemaker]

 

[RhinoRush]

This shit can't be what I am understanding it to be...I mean I think Canada and I think of a couple toothless hockey players punching each other for no reason while a full stadium applauds. Has Canada fallen this far?

This is the problem with our system in Canada. A small group of crazies in Ontario get to decide for everyone else.

 

[RhinoRush]

I don't believe that it was necessary to spend a lot of taxpayers' money on getting this bill passed, but my point was that nothing's going to change, and it's not a sign in any way that Canada is one step closer to authoritarianism. I see far worse signs in Canada that things are going in a dubious direction, but this Bill C-16 is actually - in the big picture - not a bad thing, reinforcing that diversity is valued and protected in Canada. You live in Finland - a relatively homogeneous country - and can't possibly appreciate how deep and far-reaching a value this is in Canada, how it's the single greatest thing about Canada, in my opinion, besides GSP of course.

And now it's my turn to lecture you about what's wrong with Finland...

I live in Canada and I don't think our diversity is to be celebrated at all. But then, I live in a working class community where I actually see what these immigrants are bringing here: Crime, unemployment and misery.

 

[blackhat]

This is going to socially alienate a lot of trannies I would imagine. People are just going to give em the cold shoulder and avoid even speaking to them.

 

[Renard]

Peterson did an amazing job, his debating skills are razor-sharp, much jelly. But he's talking to fools who've already made up their mind.

 

[IDL]

I don't see how a Canadian Citizen wouldn't be justified in committing violence over this. There really aren't many more steps involved In setting up a tyrannical government. They are on the line. Personally I think they've crossed it.

It's the death by a thausand cuts approach. Slow, concerted, incremental changes over time.

More people are starting become keen on how it's working, yet it still is being pushed through, and pushed into education. I liken it as the 'sovietization' of Western democracies, seeing as how it is rooted in Marxist ideology.

Much like in the soviet system the 'state ideology' was Marxism-Leninism and people were taught in the education systems there, it is now a NeoMarxist ideology reformulated and repackaged to apply to developed Western democracies. A new state religion.

Most people don't know the Marxist underpinnings of what we see today and still recognize it as very strange. It's creepy as hell once the underpinnings are known.

 

[Pwent]

MAXIMUM VIRTUE SIGNALLING

i bet most people wouldnt vote for this in a private vote, but the politicians have to do it to appeal to their voter base and call themselves champions of civil rights or whatever

 

[chubbman]

Now, does a retard need to specify his/her/thems gender before hand or are you fucked the minute you assume said retards gender?

 

[IDL]

MAXIMUM VIRTUE SIGNALLING

i bet most people wouldnt vote for this in a private vote, but the politicians have to do it to appeal to their voter base and call themselves champions of civil rights or whatever

Often times as well though it is just rubber stamping whatever comes along.

Although for those looking to embed Trojan horses in bills, it is best done by cloaking it in some sort of humanitarian and 'feels' play. Then to resist it is 'anti-feels' and who wants to be 'anti-feels'?

 

[lifelessheap]

This is why I voted Trump. Yea, he fucks up a lot. But he hasn't made MANDATORY SPEECH legal. You stupid mother fuckers. If someone got in trouble for this, they are justified to murder who ever tries to enforce the law. It is anti civilization. It is barbaric. It's a war on the mind. A war on any semblance of freedom of thought. Jesus Christ.

When you ban speech and make words illegal you are trying to enforce thought control. It is a disgusting fascist tactic.

Canada is controlled by hateful fascists who hate freedom of thought and expression.

 

[Dr J]

@Lead, dubs for any Canadian misgendering other posters in The War Room would be appropriate. No way should they get away with law breaking scot-free in anonymity behind a keyboard.

Make it happen!

 

[EndlessCritic]

Bill C-16 does not impinge on freedom of speech in any way in Canada. Things are no different than they were before in that regard. Literally the only change that Bill C-16 has made is the addition of “gender identity or expression” to the list of protected categories. That’s it. That’s literally all. What this means is, transgenders officially now have become a group of people who have the right to receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law. It is a nod from the government of Canada that transgenders deserve respect, and that their diversity has value. Recognizing, valuing, and protecting diversity is a core part of the Constitution of Canada, and I think it's a good thing. I see freedom of hateful expression in the US as something repugnant, and I'm proud to live in a country where you can be a hateful and racist as you like in the privacy of your own home, and as an anonymous asshole on the Internet, but if you try that shit in public, if you spew hatred towards someone based on race, religion, etcetera, the law is definitely not on your side. And Bill C-16 simply spells out that transgenders are a protected group. That's fucking it.

Not sure exactly what the laws are in the US, but in Canada you can't say any old thing if it's hateful. You are not protected by the Constitution if you start calling a Black person the N word, or a woman the C word. You are not protected if you started verbally harassing or discriminating against people based on race, religion, and now transgender. This is all Bill C-16 is - adding transgenders to the list of protected groups. Bill C-16 simply adds transgenders to the list of categories of people protected from discrimination. You can't discriminate against someone in Canada based on, for example, race religion, sex, and disability. Now transgender has been added to the list. That is literally all. I know I'm being repetitive, but some of you people on here need a couple of extra knocks on the head.

There will not be one case in Canada - guaranteed - of anyone bothering to hire a lawyer and go to the courts to challenge the use of pronouns.

You seem to be very confused. There is an important distinction between transgendered individuals (male <---> female), and what this law actually protects (the infinite spectrum of gender expression and identity.)

Imagine if you hire a cashier to work at your small business. Quickly, this person begins correcting customers as to their gender. "Actually, I'm not a male or female, I'm a borgot." This person goes on to explain that they are the only borgot in the universe, which in turn makes your customers uncomfortable. You, as a small business owner are now prohibited from terminating this person.

It is one thing for someone to claim that they are a man born in a woman's body, or vice versa. Indeed, science may one day advance to the point to absolutely vindicate these people. However, this law goes far beyond protecting transgendered individuals -- it protects any person who claims to be any invented gender.

The short explanation is that this is horribly illogical because the people who buy into this non-standard gender identity ideas commit the fallacy of reification. They confuse the description of the thing with being the thing. Rather than being a woman with XYZ characteristcs, they say they are an XYZ. Rather than being a man who is non-gender conforming, they say their gender identity is gender neutral. These are fundamentally distinctions without a difference, yet we have decided to provide legal protections to these purely rhetorical distinctions.

Finally, human rights tribunals in canada are kangaroo courts. Ontario has already decided that growing a beard is not a protected form of gender expression for a man. (Further reading: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2016/2016hrto62/2016hrto62.html) If growing a beard isn't a protected form of gender expression, how can anything be protected? If you trust human rights courts to sanely apply insane laws, you are a fool.

However, in my view, interpreting “gender expression” broadly to extend protection to the right of men to grow beards would do violence to the important and fundamental purposes sought to be achieved by human rights legislation. There is nothing to indicate that bearded men suffer any particular social, economic, political or historical disadvantage in Canadian or Ontario society, absent any connection between the wearing of a beard and matters of religious observance or perhaps some link to a protected ground in the Code other than sex or gender expression.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Next, they have to take aim at people who use "your" when they mean "you're" and vice versa.

 

[HomerThompson]

Next, they have to take aim at people who use "your" when they mean "you're" and vice versa.

I fully support this measure.