Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Many of you will no doubt remember Lindsay Shepherd.

  • She was the teaching assistant in the Department of Communications that Wilfred Laurier University, who was subjected to a three member panel of inquiry after she showed a video taken from Canadian public television of me debating the compelled speech legislation introduced in federal Bill See, 16.

  • She showed my discussion with Nicholas Matt, who held the opposite position.

  • Here is part of the discussion in question.

  • Why don't we do this?

  • Let's take a moment.

  • We're gonna explain a few basic things here.

  • The issue of so called non traditional pronouns goes together with non traditional gender identities.

  • New York City, for example, recognizes 31 such gender expressions.

  • In other words, besides man and woman, there are 29 other gender expressions.

  • For example, pan gender, queer gender, gender fluid, cross dresser, bi gendered gender blender and the list goes on.

  • And Nicholas, this is where I want to bring you into the discussion because you teach this.

  • You teach trans study.

  • So if you would give us a brief primer on so many gender identities that, in your view require non traditional pronounce, basically it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex, and I'm a historian of medicine.

  • I can unpack that for you at great length if you want, but in the interest of time, I won't.

  • The three member panel included professors Nathan Rambo Cana, her supervisor, Herbert Pimlott, in charge of the master's program, and Adria Joel, manager of gendered violence and sexual assault prevention.

  • Shepherd taped the meeting and released it publicly, producing what I think was the biggest scandal that ever enveloped a Canadian university and certainly the only one in living memory that became news internationally.

  • The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas?

  • Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they're insulated away from this, like, is that with the point of this is because to me, that is so against what a university is about.

  • So against it.

  • I was not taking sides.

  • I was presenting both arguments.

  • So the thing of it is about fists is if you're presenting something like this, it, uh, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you're creating, and this is actually these arguments are counter to the Canadian human rights code.

  • Ever since I know that you talked about, um see, 16 ever since this past, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone, um, due to their gender identity or gender expression.

  • So bringing something like that up in class, Not critically.

  • And I understand that you're trying to like it was critical.

  • I I introduced it critically household.

  • Like Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

  • Okay, in the spirit of the debate is slightly different than being like, Okay, this is this is a problematic idea that we want what we want to unpack, but that's taking sides like it's taking sides for me to be like, Oh, look at this guy.

  • Like everything that comes out of the mountains B s, we're gonna watch anyway, So I understand the position they're coming from in your position ality.

  • But the reality is that it has created a toxic climate or some of the students.

  • You know how many?

  • It's great.

  • Oh, like how many?

  • One.

  • Yeah, I have.

  • No, I have no concept of like how many people complain.

  • Like what their complaint was.

  • You haven't showed me the complaint.

  • Yes, I I understand that this is upsetting.

  • But there's also confidential company and confidentiality matters.

  • The number of people's especial, yes.

  • Although the university apologized publicly for its treatment of Shepherd, as did Rambo Cana, it is not clear at all that the powers that be so to speak learned their lesson.

  • And the mistreatment of Shepherd not only continued but arguably intensified.

  • So she decided to press her case legally and presented a statement of claim against the three and Wilfred Laurier early in the second week of June.

  • It lists in painful detail the many ways that this situation was mishandled during and after the initial Inquisition.

  • I also discussed the situation with Howard Levitt, Sheppard's lawyer.

  • I decided that Wilfred Laurier had learned very little from its public embarrassment and that Shepherd's claims were valid, justifiable and necessary, including her statement that her future lack of employability in academia was improbable, To say the least.

  • I've bean on hiring committees and I can tell you that even then, the slightest whiff of scandal is enough to disqualify a candidate in consequence.

  • Not only did I decide to read and post the entirety of shepherds claims, which I will do in a few minutes, I also decided to launch a claim of my own against the same defendants.

  • I thought the two lawsuits might make the point better than one.

  • I'll read some of my claim to after shepherds and you can all make up your own minds about the suitability of this course of action.

  • Ontario Superior Court of Justice Between Lindsay Shepherd, Plaintiff and Nathan Rambo Cana Adria, Jule Herbert Pimlott and Wilfred Laurier University defendants Statement of claim to the defendant A legal proceeding has been commenced against you by the plaintiff.

  • The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

  • If you failed to defend this proceeding judgement maybe given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

  • To Nathan Rambo, Kanna and to Adrian Jule and a Herbert Pimlott and to Wilfred Laurier University Claim the plaintiff claims the following against the defendants individually and cumulatively.

  • The following 500,000 for the tort of harassment.

  • 500,000 for the tort of intentional infliction of nervous shock.

  • 500,000 for the tort of negligence.

  • 100,000 for constructive dismissal.

  • Aggravated damages in the amount of 500,000 general damages in the amount of 500,000 punitive damages in the amount of a $1,000,000.

  • The plaintiff resides in the town of Waterloo in the province of Ontario.

  • The defendant's Herbert Pimlott and Nathan Rambo Cana, Our professors at the defendant Wilfred Laurier University Pin Lord was the coordinator for the master's program of the university, and Ramu Cana at the relevant time was the professor for the course, which Shepard was a teaching assistant for both had considerable influence over the plaintiff's employment as a teaching assistant and status as a master student.

  • The defendant, Adria Joel Waas at all Relevant times.

  • Acting manager of the university's Diversity and Equity office in charge of gender violence prevention, the defendant University is a creature of statute created pursuant to the provisions of the Wilfred Laurie Act.

  • The university is vicariously liable for all of the conduct of the individual defendants referred to here in and at all relevant times, created an environment supporting and facilitating, acquiescing to and implicitly and sometimes explicitly endorsing that conduct the constituents Statute of the university.

  • The Wilford Laurie Act 1973 as amended 2000 and one and 2016 in providing the fundamental jurisdiction and authority for the university to operate states as its object in Section four that the objects of the university are for the pursuit of learning through scholarship, teaching and research within a spirit of free inquiry and expression.

  • The university has no other object and no juristic and no jurisdiction to operate.

  • Otherwise.

  • The university has no other object and no jurisdiction to operate otherwise.

  • Pursuant to Section five powers of the university, the act further states that the university has all powers necessary and incidental to the satisfaction and furtherance of its objects.

  • As a university, the constituents statute creating an empowering the university provides it with no other power or authority.

  • Shepherd was at all relevant times a student in the university master's program, pursuing your master's degree and employed as a teaching assistant for a course under Rambo Cana and following that under Professor Judith Nicholson as a teaching assistant, Shepherd supported a class taught by Professor Rambo Khanna.

  • She was generally responsible for teaching two groups of approximately 25 students, was assigned topics and was entitled pursuant to the policies of the university end of Rambo Cana to devise her own curriculum.

  • Rambo Cana was an indifferent mentor who had only met with Shepherd twice about his course, and only then briefly, ironically, given his complaint against her as delineated below, he provided her with very limited direction as to the content to provide to her students in his class is the topic.

  • For one of her communication classes, held on November 1st, 2017 was grammar.

  • She taught three classes that day.

  • Shepherd introduced the topic of the grammatical correctness of gender neutral language in the evolution of various languages and to facilitate discussion on the subject showed a few minute extract from a TV Ontario program moderated by Steven Peikin, consisting of a debate between Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto psychology department and Nicholas Matt from the University of Toronto's Sexual Diversity Studies program.

  • Peterson and Nicholas Matt were debating compelled gender pronouns.

  • Peterson argued against being required to use thes new words, which he argued had not developed organically.

  • Matt took an opposing position shortly following that class.

  • Rambo Cannon ordered her to attend a meeting the very next day with himself.

  • Pimlott, the program coordinator for the entire master's program, and Adria Joel, acting director of the Diversity and Equity Office.

  • Both Rambo Cana and Pimlott had considerable authority over Shepherd's fate at the university.

  • Apparently, so did Joel.

  • Shepherd had never been called into such a meeting.

  • Indeed, Rambo Cana to that point had barely acknowledged her existence at this session.

  • All three lambasted Shepherd viciously attacking her personally, falsely alleging that there had been a complaint or complaints about her tutorial and insisting that in playing the TV Ontario clip she had been threatening to her students.

  • Rambo can.

  • It claimed that air showing this TV Ontario clip breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal bill See 16 which is not even governed, provincially regulated universities created on unsafe learning environment and was illegal.

  • Shepherd was accused of targeting trans folks even though Shepherd had chosen no side had up till that point, disagreed with what she understood to be Petersen's perspective and presented the arguments and the debate neutrally.

  • Rambo can attacked and slandered Peterson, claiming that he was part of the all right and that playing a clip of Peterson without first providing any previous context to the students was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler, Shepherd argued that doing as he asked would be taking sides, and that was not her role.

  • She was then further rebuked for taking that position at various points.

  • During that almost hour long, vicious and abusive attack, Shepherd was reduced to tears.

  • Ironically, rather than being a present day personification of Adolf Hitler, as Rambo, Cana implied, Jordan Peterson has spent decades educating his students about the evils of the Holocaust and specifically as part of the psychological teachings, has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take place to the point where they take part in atrocities.

  • As part of his psychological teachings, he has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take part in atrocities.

  • During the meeting, Shepherd was effectively attacked as a protege and supporter of Peterson.

  • Pimlott continued to libel Peterson, explaining that people like him live in a fantasy world of false conspiracy and accusing Shepard of being an agent of those ideas because she had neutrally shown this video with its opposing viewpoints.

  • Rambo Cana, falsely but imaginatively claimed that Shepard herself was targeting people based on their gender identity or gender expression, and in doing so had violated the federal human rights code of Bill See 16.

  • Although Shepherd's conduct was in no way violent of of that or any law, Shepherd asked the individual defendants whether her job is a teaching assistant was to shield her students from debate and ideas.

  • Rambo Cana asserted that it was and then accused her of targeting students due to their gender expression and identity.

  • When Shepherd pointed out that she had not taken sides in this debate, the three rebuked her for creating a toxic climate.

  • The three refused to advise Shepherd what the complaint was or who complained, claiming that even the number of complaints was confidential, as was subsequently ascertained.

  • There had been no complaints at all.

  • Shepherd protested that she did not understand how our teaching methods constituted any disservice to the university.

  • Since the ideas in the video were already part of social currency, Joel responded without any foundation, accusing her of spreading transphobia Rambo.

  • Cana added to Jules attack by essentially comparing her actions to white supremacy.

  • Contrary to the allegations of the defendants at this meeting, Shepherd conducted herself at this seminar precisely as her rule required and singularly represented the principles of the Wilfred Laurier University Act.

  • For this, she was viciously attacked by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

  • They continued to abuse her even after she began sobbing, accusing Shepard of causing harm two unnamed students.

  • Shepherd apologized for crying during the meeting, pleading, I am stressed out because to me, this is wrong, so wrong.

  • Noting that the very spirit of the university is to challenge ideas that you already have and reminding them that she had not taken any side or position.

  • The meeting concluded with Shepherd being advised even after she promised to show no further videos of Peterson or anything of the like, that she now had to run all of her seminar notes past Rambo Kanna to obtain specific approval for any future clips of anyone that she attended to show and that Rambo Cana might have to sit in on her future classes.

  • She was prohibited from showing any further videos.

  • Finally, they suggested to her that her job might be in jeopardy.

  • The conduct of the defendants was objectively outrageous and flagrant.

  • They had reckless disregard for the fact that the foreseeable consequences of their conduct would cause Shepherd to suffer emotional stress, which it did.

  • There are various policies of the university, which constitute a contract between the university and its members, including Shepherd.

  • Article 1.1 of the procedures relating to the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination Policy.

  • 6.1 of the university notes that informal resolution possibilities as well as emotional, academic and departmental supports will be explored.

  • None of this occurred.

  • It also noted in Article 1.2 of the procedures relating to the Prevention of harassment Discrimination policy 6.1 that if the concern falls outside of this policies jurisdiction or could be more appropriately dealt with elsewhere, the individual be referred to the appropriate office that also did not occur.

  • Under Article 3.2 of Policy 6.1, the Office of Dispute Resolution and Support will determine whether a complaint may go forward.

  • Article 3.4 states that the office is available to provide guidance on the preparation of a complaint or response to a complaint.

  • That guidance was not provided to Shepherd.

  • Article 5.1 of policy 6.1 states that an investigation may be required when other efforts to resolve the complaint have not been successful or not appropriate.

  • In the complaint by Jackson referred to below, no other efforts to resolve the complaint were considered before proceeding to the formal investigation of Shepherd.

  • Article 8.3 of policy 6.1 states that Wilfred Laurier universities, prevention of discrimination and harassment policy is not intended to inhibit academic freedom.

  • It was used by Rambo Can a Jewel and Pimlott for precisely that purpose.

  • Article 8.5 notes that the university may take disciplinary action against those who make allegations of harassment or discrimination, which are reckless, malicious or not in good faith.

  • Although Pimlott, Rambo, Cana and Jule had acted recklessly, maliciously and in bad faith, and it was ultimately determined by the university that this meeting never should have occurred, no action has been taken by the university against them, and Shepherd was provided no protection from their predations.

  • The Prevention of Harassment Discrimination Policy provides an article 1.0 to that each member of the campus community is responsible for helping to create an environment that promotes mutual respect and understanding for the dignity and rights of others.

  • This policy was violated by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

  • The prevention of Harassment Discrimination policy defines workplace harassment in Article 2.4 as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in the workplace that is known or off reasonably to be known to be unwelcome or workplace harassment.

  • This provision to was violated by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

  • Article 2.7 defines a poisoned environment as wear, harassing or discriminatory behaviors are severe and or pervasive and cause unreasonable interference with a person, study or work environment.

  • A poisoned environment may be created.

  • A poisoned work or learning environment is one that is intimidating, hostile and or offensive.

  • A poisoned environment can rise even from a single incident.

  • It may be created by the comments or auctions of any person, regardless of his or her status.

  • Rambo, Khanna, Pimlott and Jewell created a poisoned work environment for Shepherd and thereby breached the university's contractual obligations to shepherd.

  • Article 4.4 states that the university will take appropriate steps to fairly investigate, respond to allegations of discrimination and or harassment in accordance with the procedures relating to this policy.

  • No such steps were taken.

  • Instead, Shepherd was wrongly attacked by the members of the administration until public and alumni outcry forced the university to retreat from its position.

  • Following this meeting being publicized, McClatchy, president of the university, was interviewed on the agenda by Steve Paykan, the same show from which the clip of the debate between Dr Peterson and Matt was taken.

  • She was repeatedly asked by Paykan whether Shepherd had done anything wrong.

  • By showing this clip from his earlier show, MCL actually effectively defended the conduct of Rambo Can a Jewel and Pimlott.

  • She refused to acknowledge that Shepherd had not acted improperly, despite pagans continuing to press her on this.

  • Shepherd had the foresight to taper inquisition when it began, and after outrage from the public and alumni erupted, the president of the university, Deborah McClatchy, and Rambo Khanna, issued apologies in Rambo.

  • canIs forced apology.

  • He continued to lie still, insisting that there had been a complaint and that he had been doing his duty by addressing it.

  • It was only when public and alumni outrage grew that McClatchy was ultimately forced to admit that what happened to Miss shepherd in the meeting was shameful and that the material she showed was entirely appropriate.

  • That was a quote.

  • This was only after an investigator found that they never had been any complaint, formal or informal, and that Rambo Cana, Pim Lords and Jules statements to the contrary were false and deceitful.

  • The university admitted in this statement from its president that this meeting never should have happened at all.

  • No formal complaint, nor even an informal concern relative to university policy had been registered.

  • As to the screening of the video, the president on Lee when besieged, acknowledged that these errors in judgment were calm, pounded by the misapplication of the university's policies and procedures, that basic guidelines and best practices on how to appropriately execute the roles and responsibilities of staff.

  • In fact, Lee were ignored or not understood.

  • The procedures on howto apply university policies and under what circumstances were not followed and that institutional failure allowed this to happen.

  • The president noted that as there was institutional failure, the responsibility ultimately started and ended with her.

  • She further acknowledged that Miss Shepherd was targeted with vitriol by members of the university.

  • McClatchy admitted that Shepherd was involved in absolutely no wrongdoing and publicly stated that the university was taking action to ensure that this did not occur again, a claim that was and remains entirely false.

  • Shepherd has never received redress of any kind, nor as she being consulted about the input that this treatment has had on her and her career prospects.

  • Instead, she was subjected to continuing abuse and a toxic climate from the university and its representatives, As described below in McClatchy's apology on November 21st 2017 she states that quote supports were in place to support student involvement in a situation who are targeted with extreme vitriol through the situation.

  • End quote.

  • Yet she and the university offered Shepherd no such support in McClatchy, claiming to be troubled by the way quote everyone end.

  • Quote involved in the situation was targeted with extreme vitriol.

  • She showed the same and equal concern for shepherds predators.

  • As for Shepard herself, the president also acknowledged that the rationale for invoking the gender and sexual violence policy did not exist, that it was misapplied and that this was a significant overreach.

  • Shepherd relies on McClatchy's admissions here in McClatchy claimed that quote Laurie is committed to the abiding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

  • End quote.

  • Her conduct throughout entirely betrayed that goal in Rambo.

  • Canas.

  • Disingenuous apology to Shepherd.

  • On November 21st 2017 he stated Open quote while I still can not discuss the student concerns raised about the tutorial End quote.

  • But no student concern had even being raised about the tutorial prior to his and his co defendants.

  • Bullying of Shepherd.

  • He acknowledged that his meeting with a panel of three people would be an intimidating situation for Shepherd and would not have invited ah, productive discussion.

  • Ram Buchanan's apology claimed that he quote did not do enough to try to support her shepherd end quote when he did absolutely nothing at all, but instead attacked her following the public outcry the next time Shepherd met with her students, the chair of the Department of Communications, Peter Urquhart, attended that tutorial and offered Shephard students but not Shepard emotional support, suggesting that they would be welcome to go to the campus wellness center.

  • He sat at the back of the room for the entire tutorial, effectively shutting down any discussion on the issue and undermining Shepherd's role in her classroom.

  • Urquhart proceeded on behalf of the university to publicly insults Shepherd.

  • When asked by email by McLane's magazine why he appeared in her class on that day, he responded, quote, I assume she recorded it.

  • Why not ask her for the recording end?

  • Quote.

  • He then sent McClane's a second email Open quote.

  • Sorry you're a pro.

  • I should have assumed that you've already heard that particular recording end quote.

  • Using his position of power and authority over Shepherd to intimidate and embarrass her publicly.

  • Professor Alyssa Slowinski, who Shepard was taking a master's course, from asked in front of the class for Shepherd to put away her laptop and then said in front of other master students that she gave this instruction because she did not want to be recorded even when Shepherd assured her that she was not recording the class, further alienating and creating a toxic environment for Shepherd.

  • Following these events, Rambo canIs course ended, and Shepherd was assigned to be the teaching assistant to Professor Judith Nicholson, a professor of communication who had publicly taken a negative position against Shepherd prior to Shepherd being assigned to her.

  • Before that semester even started, Nicholson had signed an open letter supporting Pimlott and Rambo Kanna.

  • This made the university assigning Shepherd to her tutelage entirely inappropriate, created a poisoned environment for Shepherd and made it impossible for her to succeed.

  • Shepherd's apprehensions about Nicholson's lack of objectivity toward her were quickly born out.

  • On three occasions during the relatively brief dealings, Nicholson without provocation, harassed and abused Shepherd and deliberately created difficulty for her.

  • From the outset of their meeting, Nicholson told Shepherd that it was her quote, academic freedom, end quote and that no one is permitted to make the university look bad, implying that Shepherd had improperly done so.

  • On the second occasion, she sent out a course syllabus with a territorial Acknowledgement III, a reference to the Aboriginal tribe which had once been on the land, which Wilfred Laurier was on Shepherd.

  • Considering this irrelevant to the syllabus and a ludicrous act of political correctness and virtue, signaling cut out that part of the note and tweeted it, noting that such Acknowledgments were now even on the syllabus of university courses, Nicholson demanded in front of the other teaching assistants that she delete her tweet when shepherd pro tested that all she was tweeting was the university logo.

  • With the course name and territorial acknowledgement.

  • Nicholson threatened to take her to the dean if she did not remove it.

  • Nicholson also absurdly claimed that this territorial acknowledgement was her intellectual property.

  • She proceeded to complain to the dean about Shepherd's tweet.

  • In an attempt to further in danger Sheppard's position in the university.

  • The dean informed Nicholson that the acknowledgment was not her intellectual property and called an urgent meeting with the two departments, which Shepherd was associated with the communication studies and the cultural analysis and social theory departments, at least in part to discuss these issues.

  • It was clear that if Shepherd had tweeted positively about the land acknowledgement, she would not have been in difficulty with Nicholson.

  • The third occasion was in March 2000 and 18 when Shepherd needed to reschedule her last class of the year and utilized polling software with a link to available alternate days for her class to fill out there available alternate dates.

  • When Shepherd found times that all of her students were available to meet, she emailed Nicholson to seek her approval for the new dates.

  • Nicholson reprimanded her copying to Dean's claiming falsely that Shepherd had moved these classes without Nicholson's consent in advance, even though the letter was just such a request and the request on its face was premised on Nicholson's consent.

  • When Shepherd advised Nicholson that she never had any intention of changing the date without Nicholson's approval, which was why her letter explicitly requested that approval, Nicholson counseled Shepherd's tutorial entirely.

  • This was despite the fact that alternate dates were available for Shepherd and her students to attend.

  • Nicholson instructed Shephard students to attend sessions of the other teaching assistants on dates, which were largely coincident with dates which Shepherd and her students had arranged.

  • Since this was to have bean shepherds last class, she never saw her students again.

  • Ethan Jackson, a transgender activist who has attacked Shepherd throughout the events described here in, launched a formal, patently frivolous harassment complaint against her, to which, even after Miss Shepherd had completed her course work at the university so she would not see Jackson again.

  • The university responded by proceeding with a formal investigation, despite its inherently vexatious bad faith and frivolous allegations, which, pursuant to the applicable policies, the university should not have proceeded with Jackson had an online crowdfunding page seeking a sex change operation, which was initially denied because of his mental health issues.

  • Additionally, Jackson was banned from the University of Waterloo campus in 2013 for pro testing and deep platforming, a member of Parliament who was to give a speech on abortion by dressing up as a giant vulva and yelling, Jackson was invariably hostile to shepherd.

  • Jackson's allegations against Shepherd were that a She was on her telephone during one cloths and purportedly disengaged from participation in that class.

  • Be Miss Shepherd had made four tweets with Screenshots from Jackson's controversial social media account.

  • Sea Shepherd responded to Jackson, walking into the printing room and angrily ordering her to leave the room and cease using the Communications Department printer, which she required for her communications coursework by referring to him as petty and pathetic D.

  • When Shepherd and two others were putting up posters for a lorry, a Society for Open Inquiry meeting, he claimed that they had followed him and his calling as they were walking around the halls, and that Shepherd's posters had sign Ege, which he found offensive posters, which he acknowledges removing from the walls without authorization.

  • The complaint of Jackson was made maliciously after classes were over for the year at a time when he and Shepherd would not ever be interacting again.

  • Since Shepard is not enrolled in lorry courses for the following session, despite Jackson's complaint being inherently self contradictory and ludicrous, the university not only proceeded to summon Shepherd for an investigation, but threatened her with repercussions if she disclosed Jackson's complaint to anyone.

  • The attacks on Shepherd have rendered her unemployable in academia, resulting in her abandoning her previous ambitions of obtaining her PhD or even teaching at a university.

  • As a master's graduate, Shepherd has suffered nervous shock as a result of the conduct of the defendants, which was the foreseeable and intended result in the alternative.

  • It was the reasonably foreseeable outcome of their conduct, and the defendants were negligent in their treatment of her.

  • So that's shepherds claim.

  • As I said after I reviewed this and talked in detail to Sheppard's lawyer, I concluded that Wilfred Lauria had not learned what needed to be learned and launched a claim of my own.

  • This week, it reads in part, the plaintiff That's me claims against the defendants.

  • Nathan Rambo Cana, Herbert Pimlott, Adri a Jewel and Wilfred Laurier University.

  • The following 500,000 for defamation.

  • 500,000 for injurious falsehood.

  • 500,000 in punitive damages, prejudgment and post judgment.

  • Interest in accordance with the courts of Justice Act costs on a substantial indemnity basis and such further and other relief as counsel may advise.

  • And this honorable court may deem just the plaintiff's claim against Rambo, Cana, Pimlott, Joel and the university.

  • Defamatory statements on YouTube On or about November 2nd 2000 and 17.

  • Rambo Cana ordered his then teaching assistant Lyndsay Shepherd, to attend what turned out to be a disciplinary meeting with himself, Pimlott and Jule to discuss her having shown an extract from a TV Ontario program to her students.

  • The TV Ontario program, moderated by Steve Pagan, consisted of a debate between Peterson and Nicholas Mt.

  • At the meeting honor about november 2nd 2017.

  • Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule each made numerous defamatory statements about Peterson, all of which the others endorsed both expressly and implied the meetings.

  • Content has since being posted online on the video sharing website YouTube and is available on the Internet, where it is open to the public and easily accessible by anyone who wishes to view its content.

  • I'm skipping a bit here at the meeting honor about november 2nd 2017 Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule falsely and maliciously made numerous defamatory statements about Peterson, including, but not limited to the following defamatory statements made by Rambo.

  • Kanna a.

  • Peterson identified student protesters by posting their social media accounts for the purpose of other people bullying and threatening them online be Peterson is basically debating whether or not a trans student should have rights.

  • See Peterson's position would be the equivalent of debating whether or not a student of color should have rights or should be allowed to be married.

  • Contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Di Peterson has engaged in the targeting of trans students, giving out their personal information for the purpose of having them attacked, harassed so that death threats will find them.

  • This is something that Peterson has done to his own students.

  • Peterson has done to other students.

  • E, playing a speech by Peterson, is basically like playing a speech by Hitler.

  • F.

  • Peterson's opinion is like all right, opinion.

  • White supremacist opinion, anti trans opinion, anti gay opinion, anti woman, misogynist opinion.

  • G.

  • Peterson's view is whether trans people are people or not.

  • Defamatory statements made by Pimlott Peterson is academically suspect, to say the least.

  • He does not have the substantial academic evidence to be a credible person.

  • Be Peterson's positions.

  • Don't have credible evidence, just like Charles Murray with his race claims of white superiority.

  • See, Peterson brings hatred and targets groups.

  • Di Peterson exhibits Charlotte in is, um e Peterson has nothing, really that is credible in terms of research.

  • Defamatory statements made by Joel, eh?

  • Peterson's position is causing harm to trans students by framing their identity as invalid or their pronounces invalid.

  • Contrary to the on Terry Human Rights Code, be, Peterson is spreading transphobia.

  • Now I'm skipping ahead a bit again.

  • The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning and the connotation of the comments obvious to any reader were meant and were understood to mean that Peterson is comparable to Adolf Hitler.

  • The greatest despot in world history deliberately spreads hatred, both generally and in particular to students.

  • Is a member of the old right is unfit to be a professor breaches the code of ethics of his profession and university is a white supremacist, has and expresses opinions which are uninformed and uneducated.

  • Is sexist.

  • Is misogynist is racist?

  • Is homophobic, is transphobic.

  • Is a deplorable person, is incompetent, is a reprobate, lacks integrity, locks the appropriate ethics to be a psychologist and professor, is a bully and abusive towards students.

  • Wants to deprive minorities of any rights, organizes attacks, even death threats on students.

  • Breaches Canadian law, dehumanizes certain of his students and lacks credibility and credentials.

  • The statements made by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Joel in For all of the above, including, but not limited to, that Peterson is unsavory, sexist, misogynist, dangerous, racist, homophobic, transphobic analogous to Adolf Hitler and incompetent in his profession as an author, teacher and professor and were false and specifically designed to impute his reputation.

  • These defamatory statements were malicious and designed specifically to damage his personal and professional character as a professor, author, lecturer and public intellectual.

  • Well, you get the picture.

  • That's the end of that.

  • I'm hoping that the combination of the two lawsuits will be enough to convince careless university professors and administrators blinded by their own ideology to be much more circumspect in their actions and their words.

Many of you will no doubt remember Lindsay Shepherd.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B2 中上級

リンジー・シェパードの事件最新情報 (The Lindsay Shepherd Affair: Update)

  • 3 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語