Why 8850 Form Legislation

Why 8850 Form Legislation 2016-2019

Get Form

Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Why 8850 Form Legislation

Instructions and Help about Why 8850 Form Legislation

Music good afternoon and welcome colleagues invited guests members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the standing Senate Committee on legal and constitutional affairs today we continue our consideration of bill C 16 an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code with this our last day of hearings on the bill we will move to clause by clause consideration tomorrow with us today for the first hour our Jordan B Peterson professor psychology department at the University of Toronto from the D Jared brown professional corporation the Jerry Brown lead counsel thank you gentlemen for being here you both have up to five minutes for opening statements and mr. Peterson I believe you're going to leave up yes sir before today so I think the first thing I'd like to bring up is that it's not obvious when considering a matter of this sort what level of analysis is appropriate if you're reading any given document you can look at the words or the phrases or the sentences or the complete document or you can look at the broader context within which it is likely to be interpreted and when I first encountered bill C 16 and its surrounding policies it seemed to me that the appropriate level of analysis was to look at the context of interpretation surrounding the bill which is what I did when I went and scoured the Ontario Human Rights Commission webpages and examined its policies I did that because at that point the Department of Justice had clearly indicated on their website in a link that was later taken down that bill C 16 would be interpreted in within the president's policy precedents already established by the Ontario Human Rights Commission so when I looked on the website I thought well there's broader issues at stake here and I tried to outline some of those broader issues in the initial you may or may not know I made some videos criticizing bill C 16 and it's a number of its of the policies that surrounding it and I think the most egregious elements of the policies are that it requires compelled speech the the Ontario Human Rights Commission explicitly states that refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun which is the pronouns that I was objecting to can be can be interpreted as harassment and so that's an explicitly defined in the relevant policies so I think that's appalling first of all because there hasn't been a piece of legislation that requires Canadians to other a particular form of address that has particular ideological implications before and I think that it's a line that we shouldn't cross then I think that the definition of identity that's enshrined in the surrounding policies is ill-defined and poorly thought through and also incorrect it's incorrect in that identity is not and will never be something that people define subjectively because your identity is something that you actually have to act out in the world as a set of procedural tools which most people learn and I'm being technical about this between the ages of 2 & 4 it's a fundamental human reality it's well recognized by the relevance a developmental psychological authorities and so the idea that identity is something that you define purely subjectively is an idea without status as far as I'm concerned I also think it's unbelievably dangerous for us to move towards representing a social constructionist view of identity in our legal system the social constructionist view insists that human identity is nothing but a consequence of socialization which is which and and there's an inordinate amount of scientific evidence suggesting that that happens to not be the case and so the reason that this is being instantiated into law is because the people who are promoting that sort of perspective or at least in part because the people who are promoting that sort of perspective know perfectly well that they lost the battle completely on scientist grounds it's impressive in the policies of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that sexual identity biological sex gender identity gender expression sexual proclivity all very independently and that's simply not the case it's not the case scientifically it's not the case factually and it's certainly not something that should be increasingly taught to people in high schools elementary schools and junior high schools which it is and it is being taught I included this cartoon character that I find particularly reprehensible aimed obviously at it as it is as children somewhere around the age of seven that contains within it the implicit can the implicit claims as a consequence of its graphic mode of expression that these elements of identity are first canonical and second independent and neither of those happen to be the case I think that the inclusion of gender expression in the bill is something extraordinarily peculiar given that gender expression is not a group and that according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission it deals with things as mundane as how behavior and outward appearance such as dress hair makeup body language and voice which now as far as I can tell open people to charges of hate crime under Bill c16 if they dare to criticize the manner of someone's dress which seems to me to be an entirely voluntary issue so I think that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's attitude towards vicarious liability is designed specifically to be punitive in it it makes employers responsible for harassment or discrimination including the failure to use preferred preferred pronouns they have vicarious liability for that whether or not they know it's happening whether or not the harassment was and whether or not the harassment was intended or unintended and so I'll stop with that thank you mr. broom I'm a litigator in Toronto I act in all manner of commercial and employment disputes I'm not

Get Form