Andwhen I firstencounteredBillsee 16 anditssurroundingpoliciesItseemedtomethattheappropriatelevelofanalysiswastolookatthecontextofinterpretationssurroundingthebill, whichiswhat I didwhen I wentandscouredonTerryHumanRightsCommissionWebpagesandexamineditspolicies.
I didthatbecauseatthatpointtheDepartmentofJusticehadclearlyindicatedontheirwebsitein a linkthatwaslatertakendown.
Sowhen I lookedonthewebsite, I thoughtwhilethere's broaderissuesatstakehereand I triedtooutlinesomeofthosebroaderissuesintheinitial, youmayormaynotknow, I madesomevideoscriticizingBillSee 16 andit's and a numberofitsofthepoliciesthatsurroundingit.
And I thinkthemostegregiouselementsofthepoliciesarethatitrequirescompelledspeech.
The, uh, theonterrorHumanRightsCommissionexplicitlystatesthatrefusingtoreferto a personbytheirselfidentifiednameandproperpersonalpronoun, whichisthepronouncethat I wasobjectingto, uh, canbe, canbeinterpretedasharassment, andsothat's that's explicitlydefinedintherelevantpolicies.
So I thinkthat's appalling.
Firstofall, becausetherehasn't been a pieceoflegislationthatrequiresCanadianstoutterah, particularformofaddressthathasparticularideologicalimplicationsbefore.
And I thinkthatit's a linethatweshouldn't cross.
Um, then I thinkthatthethedefinitionofidentitythat's enshrinedinthesurroundingpoliciesisilldefinedandpoorlythoughtthroughandalsoincorrect.
It's incorrectinthatidentityisnotandwillneverbe, somethingthatpeopledefinesubjectively, becauseyouridentityissomethingthatyouactuallyhavetoactoutintheworldas a setofproceduraltoolswhichmostpeoplelearn.
And I'm beingtechnicalaboutthisbetweentheagesoftwoandfour, it's a fundamentalhumanreality.
Asfaras I'm concerned, I alsothinkit's unbelievablydangerousforustomovetowardsrepresenting a socialconstructionistsviewofidentityinourlegalsystem, thesocialconstructionistsviewinsiststhathumanidentityisnothingbut a consequenceofsocialization, whichiswhich.
I includedthis, uh, cartooncharacterthat I findparticularlyreprehensible, aimedobviouslyatit, asitisatChildrensomewherearoundtheageofseven, thatcontainswithinittheimplicittheimplicitclaimsas a consequenceofitsgraphicmotiveexpressionthattheselementsofidentity, ourfirsteconomicalandsecondindependent, andneitherofthosehappentobethecase.
I thinkthattheinclusionofgenderexpressioninthebillissomethingextraordinarilypeculiar, giventhatgenderexpressionisnot a groupandthat, accordingtotheonTerryHumanRightsCommission, itdealswiththingsasmundaneashowbehaviorandoutwardappearancesuch a dress, hair, makeup, body, languageandvoice, whichnow, asfaras I cantell, openpeopletochargesofhatecrimeunderBillSee 16 iftheydaretocriticizethemannerofsomeone's dress, whichseemstometobeanentirelyvoluntaryissue.
So I thinkthattheonTerryhumanrightcommissionsattitudetowardsvicariousliabilityisdesignedspecificallytobepunitiveinthatitmakesemployersresponsibleforharassmentordiscrimination, includingthefailuretousepreferredpreferredpronouns.
Whilethechillingeffectofhumanrightslegislationislikelytobelesssignificantthanthatof a criminalprohibition, thevaguenessofthelawmeansitmaywelldetermineconductthancanlegitimatelybetargeted.
As a lawyerontheground, I worryaboutpoorlydrafted, a poorlydraftedlawanditsimpactonmyclients.
As a Canadian.
I worryaboutParliamenttacitlyauthorizingcompelledspeech.
Thebrief I providedtothecommitteecontains a comprehensivelegalopinionthat I publishedbackinDecemberon C 16.
There's a tablethatshowshowthefederalhumanrightsregimemirrorstheOntariosystemintermsofenforcement, policiesandguidedhavetowrapup, sir.
Thatwe'vehadinplaceintheprovincesfordecades, insomecases, isthepoliciesthatwereenactedafteritlefttheLegislatureandwhichwillbeenactedafterthisbillleavesthisthethiscommitteethefactthatonce I madethevideostatingthat I wouldn't usethe Z andTzarpronouns, forexample, which I regardaspartofanideologicallinguisticvanguard.
Theuniversitylawyers, aftercarefullyconsideringwhat I said, sentmetwoletterstoceaseanddesistinmypublicutterancesbecausetheybelievethatnotonlywas I violatingtheuniversitystandardsofconduct, butthat I wasalsoviolatingtherelevantprovisionsoftheOntarioHumanRightsCommission.
Therefore, asfaras I couldtell, vindicatingthestatementthat I madewhen I madethevideotobeginwith, whichwasthattheactofmakingthevideoitselfwasprobablyalreadyillegal, andtheydidn't dothatlightlyontheprovincial.
And I think I'm actuallyin a reasonablepositiontotojustifymyclaim.
I thinkthatthedangerthat's intrinsictothelawfaroutweighswhateverpotentialbenefititmightproduce, especiallygiventhatthere's nohardevidencewhatsoeverforanybenefit.
I wouldalsoliketopointoutthatthepeoplewhoarepromotingthislegislationclaimtobeactingonthebehalfbehalfsayingofthetransgendercommunity.
Sayso I'vereceivedmanylettersatleast 30 nowfromtransgenderedindividualsindicatingthatthethey'renotinaccordancewiththeclaimsofthesesocalledrepresentativestoberepresentingorwiththeintentofthelegislation, whichhasactuallymadethemmorevisibleratherthanlessvisible, whichis, andthelessvisibleiswhattheyhadpreferredwithregardstorespectisthatyoudon't meetpeoplegenerallyspeakingin a mutualdisplayofrespect, yougenerallymeetpeoplein a mutualdisplayofalertneutrality, whichistheappropriatewaytobeginaninteractionwithsomeonebecauserespectissomethingthatyouearnas a consequenceofreciprocalinteractionswiththataredependentonsomethinglikereputation, whichisalso a consequenceofrepeatedinteractions.
Andsothenotionthataddressingsomeonebytheirselfdefinedselfidentityisnecessarilyanindicationofbasichumanrespectforthem, I think, isthisentirelyspuriousargument, especiallygiventhatthere's noevidencethatmovingthelanguagein a compelledmannerinthisdirectionisgoingtohaveanybeneficialeffect.
Ifyoudon't knowwhichpronounispreferred, simplyreferringtotheirpersonbytheirchosennameisalways a respectfulapproach, soyoucanusethepronounyoucanchoose.
Youcanusetheirchosenname.
SoifsomeonechoosestochangehisnamefromPaultoPeter, surelyyouwouldusePeterbecauseit's a matterofsimplepolitenessandrespect.
IfthesamepersonpersonchoosestocheattochangeyournamefromPaultoPaula, I won't useyouusethatnamePolosimplyas a matterofrespect.
What's thedifferencehere?
Well, I guesstheissueandspeakabovethelegalissuethereisthatyou'renowintroducingthefullforceofthelawbehindtherequirementtouse.
And I'm dealingobviouslywithrespecttothepronounissueintermsofnotaddressingsomebodybytherebytheirlegallyregisteredname.
Forinstance, Um, I don't thinkthat's wherewe'rerunningintotroublehere.
I thinktheissuebecomesthatifyoudon't addresssomebodybythepronounthattheyselfidentifiedbyas I'vereadouttoyouthefactthatthefullforceofthelawwillbebehindthatperson, thatthat's what I I'm findinghistrucktroublinginthelegislation.
ButtheInteriorHumanRightsCommissiongivespeoplethealternativenottouse, pronounceandusetheperson's chosenname, whichisalways a respectfulapproachsopronouncedarenotnecessaryornotmandatory.
Youcanalwayschoosetheperson's chosennameas a respectfulapproach, andtherefore, I r.
I'm notawarethatanybodythatthereis a, um, a pieceoflegislationthatcompelsyoutousemypropernameinotherwords, itonceagain, it's thefactthatthefullforce, thelawwillbebehinditwhenwe'redealingwiththegroupbeingidentifiedinthelegislation.
Andso, forinstance, if I werenottocallyoubyyourchosenname, I'm notsureyou'd enjoythefullforceoflawbehindyou.
Um, as a resultofthat.
Andthat's what I'm suggestingtoyouisthedifferencehere.
Youcanalwaysusetheperson's chosennameas a respect.
I respectfullydisagree.
Butthenwell, I wouldsaythenthat's actuallyanindicationofjustexactlyhowimportantthepolicydocumentsarewritten.
Because I canquotethisone, which, whichisalsofromtheOntarioHumanRightsCommissionwebsitethatsaysAnd I quote, refute, refusingtoreferto a personbytheirselfidentifiednameandproperpersonalup.
Andsoifthere, ifthepoliciesarewritteninthecoherentmannerandtherewasn't internalcontradictionsthanyourstatement, wouldbe a reasonableobjection.
Butsinceit's notwrittenthatway, and I dobelievefirmlythatthat's a testamenttothedegreetowhichit's a poorlywrittensetofpoliciesisthatit's fullofinternalcontradictionsandthatwillbeworkedoutverypainfullywithintheconfinesofpeople's privatelives.
Thankyou, sir.
You, uh, Senator, batters, thanksverymuch.
Bothofyouforbeinghere.
Firstofall, DrPeterson, I wanttogobacktothisissueofpersonalpronounce.
AndifyoucouldpleasetellourcommitteeMauraaboutthisissue, it's somethingthat I wasnotatallfamiliarwithpriortothisbill, um, beingintroducedandinparticularaboutthegenderneutralpronounsandyourexperienceandpushingbackagainstbeingforcedtousethosegeneralneutralgenderneutralpronouns.
Well, I don't thinkthepeoplewhoinitiatedthislegislationeverexpectedthattherewouldbeanabsoluteexplosionofofidentities, firstofallandalsoofsocalledpersonalpronouns, astherehasbeen, I thinkFacebooknowrecognizessomethinglike 71 separategenderidentitycategories, eachofwhich, inprinciple, isassociatedwithitsownsetofpronouns.
Andsoit's becomewhatlinguisticallyit's become a parody.
Andsothethelegislationdevolvesinto a kindofofofabsurdity.
Asfaras I cantell.
I meanoneofthepeoplethat I discussedthiswithclaimedthatthewaythatyoukepttrackofsomeone's personalpronounswastouseyourcellphoneasanadjuncttoyourcommunication.
And I mean, that's youwouldn't sayanythinglikethatifyouknewanythingaboutcommonhumannature.
Sothetypesofpronounsyou'retalkingaboutjustsoeveryone's clearbecause I don't thinktheseairColeman, Colemanparlance Z andTzarandwhatothersortsofgenderneutralpronounsarewediscussinghere?
Well, I have a verybadmemoryforthatsortofthing.
Butifyou'reinterestedinit, youconfinedlistsofthemveryrapidlyontheWeb, andthey'vebeenproducedby I thinkthey'vebeanproducedbypeoplewhoseessentialdesireistogainlinguisticcontrol.
That's that's That's a simplythat I canputitistogainlinguisticcontrol, butthey'renotusedpopularly, andthatseemstometobeIt's a realproblemas a consequencethatyoumakefailuretomaketheirusesomethingthatcouldcarry a criminalpenalty.
So I justdon't understandthat.
And I don't understandhowthegovernmentcanjustifyimposing a criminalpenaltyontheuseofwordsthatnooneeitherknowsorusesit.
Itjustseemspreposteroustome.
Butthereitis.
Couldyoupleasealsotellus a littlebitmoreabouttheyourpersonalexperienceandpushingbackagainstthisandmany?
You'refamiliarwithyourstory, butnoteveryone.
So I justwantedto.
Well, I made a video, actuallymadethreevideos, butwe'lljusttalkaboutoneofthem.
I madeonecriticizingBillSee, 16 forthereasonsthatalreadydescribedcause I wentredthepolicies.
Theymademyhairstandonendthesurroundingpolicies.
And, uhso I made a videostatingessentiallythatanddetailaboutmyreasons.
Andyouknow, I'vebeenfollowingthebattleoflet's say, ideologiesoncampusfor a verylongperiodoftime, and I I suppose I havesomeexpertiseinout.
Andthere's a There's anideologicalwarthat's rippingcampusesapart, andit's essentiallybetween a ofideologicalvariantthat's rootedinwhat's cometobeknownaspostmodernismwithkindoftheneoMarxistbaseandandmodernmodernism.
I wouldsaythatthat's accountingforalltheturmoilonthecampuses, and I seethisasanextensionofthiscampusturmoilintothebroaderworld, and I reallybelievethatistheproperlevelofanalysis.
I trulybelievethat.
Andso I saidthat I believethatthisisthevanguardissuein a kindofideologicalwarandthat I'm notgoingtoparticipateonthesideofthepeoplewhosewhoseideologicalstance I findreprehensible, unforgivableandreprehensible, especiallytheMarxistelementofit.
Andso I announcedthat I wasn't inusethesewordsbecause I don't believethatthey'reinStan.
Shehatedtoprotectanyone's rights.
I believetherethatthethetheideologueswhoarepushingthismovementareusingunsuspectingandsometimescomplicitymembersofthesocalledtransgendercommunitytopushtheirideologicalvanguardforward.
And I firmlybelievethat.
So I'm notparticipatinginthat, andthefactthatit's potentiallyillegalformenottoparticipateinthatissomethingthat I regardis I thinkthat's absolutelydreadful.
It's makeitputs a shudderinmyheartas a Canadianthatwecouldevenpossiblybein a situationlikethat.
Thisbilladdressesandwouldtake a majorstepforwardtowardsreducingharmthat a particularlyvulnerablecommunityexperiences.
Second, let's seeifwecanzeroinonwherewemightagreethatthereisnothinginthelawthatcriminalizesorcreates a anoffensetocriticizethenotionthatidentityis a socialconstruct.
Butthere's nothinginthisbillthatstandsinthewayofyoutaking a principledpositionagainstallaspectsofthis, includingyourcriticismsoftheactivist.
Theissueisthepronoun, andunless I'm readingitwrong, SenatorPrattpointedout, TheOntarioHumanRightsCommissionpolicydoesnotsaythatrefusingtouse a person's selfidentifiednameorpersonalpronoundoesconstitutegenderbasedharassment.
I mean, I maybewrong, but I believeitsaiditcould, and I thinkthat's a realdifferenceifif I turntoyouandsay, Look, pleasecallmetheybecausethat's how I seemyselfnow.
Uh, andandinthatrespect, comeourcourtsultimately, I think, arecapableofstriking a properbalancebetweenpeoplewhoslipuporwho, forwhateverreasons, justcan't getthewordsoutoftheirmouthandthosethatpersistsandintentionallycausingcommunitytorespond.
Wouldyouagreewithmycharacterizationofthe A freespeechasitappliestotheseissues?
Letmejumpinjustonthelegalpoint, youthinkafterDrPetersonpostedvideosandafterherosetothepublicconsciousness, theinteriorHumanRightsCommissiondeemedfittorelease a newpolicydocumentcalledquestionsandanswersaboutgenderidentityandpronounce.
Andinsodoing, theysaidthatrefusingtoreferto a transpersonbytheirchosennameandandah, personalpronounthatmatchestheirgenderidentityorpurposelyMissJennaRingwilllikelybediscrimination.
So I thinkit's a littlebitmorecertainthanwhatyoumayhaveindicatedinyourcomment.
Andso I thinkthat's verytellingthatitwas a response, ifyouwill, tothisthisthisissuethatDrPetersonraised, I'm gonnalove, obviouslyDrPeterson, togoaheadwiththeotherelementofyourquestion.
Verybriefly, sir.
Well, so I wouldsaythattheveryideathatcallingsomeone a termthattheydidn't choosecausesthemsuchirreparableharmthatlegalremediesshouldbesoughtratherthanregardingitas a formofinpolitenessthatlegalremediesshouldshouldbesought, includingpotentialviolationofthehatespeechcodes, isanindicationofjusthowdeeplythecultureofvictimisationhassunkintooursociety.
AndAnd I thinktheonlything I canofferas a lawyerand a litigatoristhatthecourtsdon't likeoverbroadterms.
Andand I wouldreferyoutothedecisionofLondonBossano, theBurgerCourtofAppeal, Whereinthatcase, theCourtofAppealsistheobjectiveofstatutoryinterpretationisdoesistodiscernthelegislativeintentfromthelanguageofthelegislation, ifpossible, andtogiveeffecttosuchintent.
Thisobjectivebecomesdifficultto a teenwherethereisconflictinprecisionor a lackofclarityinthelegislationofparticularlyofparticularconcernintheareaofhumanrightslawisthat a lackofclaritywillcast a chillontheexerciseontheofthefundamentalfreedoms, suchasfreedomofexpressionandreligion.
Andso, umwell, I personallybelievethatthethatthetermswerenotproperlyornotclearlydefinedandsomewhatambiguous.
Thecourts.
I don't likethattypeoflegislation, either.
ABtwothingswithregardstothechill.
It's alreadythecase, and I'veseenthisamongmyownstudentswhenthey'reteachingpersonality, whichiswhat I teach, whichalsoinvolvesassessmentofgenderdifferencesbetweenmenandwomen.
And I wouldalsosaythatit's notrivialmatterthattheDepartmentofJusticeislinkedtotheonTerryHumanRightsCommission, andtheirstatementsabouthowthislegislationwasgoingtobeinterpretedmysteriouslydisappearedinthemiddleofDecember.
Ofallthethingsthathavehappenedtomehappenedinrelationshiptothisatthat I'd beenstudying, I thinkthatwasthemostchillingbecauseitwasthatitwasthewhatwouldyousayitwasthesmokingpistol, right?
Peoplewhoknowhowtodescribeitwellwithregardstoyoursecondpointifthepeoplethatyou'relisteningtoaren't randomlyselectedfrom a populationthantheiropinionsareworthlessfromtheperspectiveoftestimonybecauseyoudon't knowifyou'redealingwith a biasedsound.
Andthat's a bigproblemwiththepublicconsultationprocessthatunderliesthisbill.
Andyoucannotappreciatethatifyou'd like.
Butit's standardpracticeinanyinanypollinginstitutionoranybodythat's attemptingtoextract a genuineopinionoutof a socalledcommunityofpeople.
There's 500 hoursofmyteachingtomyclassroomsontapeonYouTube, butnobody's found a smokingpistol.
I'm not a discriminatoryindividual, but I thinkthislegislationisreprehensibleand I donotbelievefor a momentthatitwilldowhatitdidn't himstudio.
I alsodon't thinkthatmyopiniondeviatessubstantiallyfromthebodiesthatyou'redescribingbecauseyouhaven't providedanyevidencethattheysayanythingotherthandiscriminationis a badthing.
And I thinkthatunreasonablediscriminationis a badthing, andit's unreasonablewhenpeoplearejudgedforanyreasonotherthanthespecificcompetencethattheybringtosay a givenposition.
It's notinanyone's bestinterestthatoccurs.
But I don't thinkthatyou'vedemonstratedintheleastthattheopinionsthat I'm puttingforwardourexistinoppositiontothestandardpracticesof, say, ofmyparticulardiscipline.
Socouldyou.
May I phone.
Couldyourepeatonemoretime?
YourresponsetoSenatorsGoldenPrattthattheOntarioHumanRightsCommissionhasprovidedwhat I wouldsayreasonablealternativestoyouryourobjectiontousingpronouns?
Well, I thinkit's beenmadeclearinthein.
ThepresentationsofaristhatitdependsonwhichpartoftheOntariohumanrightscommissionspoliciesyouread, andthat's a bigproblem.
I mean, that's oneofthereasons I criticizedthistobeginwithwasbecausewhen I wentthroughthepolicies, I couldseethatthey'reabsolutelyincoherent.
It's likeSorry, guys, youcan't havebothofthosebecauseone's a andone's not a andyoucan't putthosetogetherAndlikethere's there's endlessnumbersofplacesinthepolicysurroundsurroundingbillSee 16 thataircharacterizedbythatkindoflogicalincoherency.
I mean, what's itgoingtodotopeoplewhoaretransgender, whoaremakingtheclaimthattheywere, say, bornthatwayatbirth, whichis a strongclaimThat's a biologicalclaim?
Itindicatesthatthere's a directcausalconnectionbetweensomebiologicalphenomenaandtheexpressionof a particularidentity.
Andthisissomethingthat's that's wellknownintherelevantsocialsciencesthatjustbecauseyouintendsomethingtohappenwhenyoumake a largescaletransformationdoesn't indicateinanymatterthatthat's goingtobetheoutcome.
I mean, itwouldbelovelyifthingswerethatsimple.
I mean, thebestsocialscientistsalwaysinsistthatyoubuildanoutcomeanalysisintoanyintendanybroadscale.
Whatwouldyoucallup?
Socialintervention?
Becausethere's a goodchanceit'llbackfire.
There's a highchanceit'llbackfire.
Soit's allpresupposition, andit's It's based a leastinpartonthenotionthatthetransgendercommunityis a communityandthattherearevoicesthatspeakforthem, homogeneousLee.
Doyousee a differencebetweentheopinionsthatyouexpressthatyouareexpressingtodayonthisissue?
Aspartofthispublicconsultationandtheactionsthatyoutakeas a universityprofessor, whereyouarein a positionofauthorityandpoweroveryourstudents.
Well, firstofall, I don't necessarilyconsidermyselfin a positionofauthorityandpower.
I consideredmyselfin a positionofresponsibility.
Thosearen't thesamething.
So I don't agreewiththewaythatthequestionisformulated, and I don't understandwhatthathastodowithmystance.
I mean, if I believethatthelegislationisgoingtodomoreharmthangood, and I alsofirmlybelievewhich I do, thatitisMawrintheissueofanideologicalmovethatthansomethingthat's designedtoaddresstheconcernsthatitpurportstoaddress.
I wouldalsoliketopointoutbrieflythatyouknowwhatshouldhavehappenedwhen I madethatvideo, andthisisrelevanttothequestion.
Wasthatlikemaybepeoplepaidattentionto 10 minutes, thioitfor 10 minutes, andmaybeitgot a newspaperarticleanditdisappeared.
But I putmyfingeronsomething.
That's what I thoughtandthefactthatthisissuehasn't goneawayinninemonths.
Quitethecontrary.
It's explodednotonlyinCanadabutinallsortsofpartsoftheworldmeansthat I believemeanstomethat I havesomeevidencethatmychoiceoflevelofanalysiswascorrectandthatthere's farmoregoingonhere, sotospeak, thenthemeresurfaceissuethatwerepurportingtodiscuss.
Andso I takeexceptiontothenotionthat I'm somehowabandoningmypersonalresponsibilitytomystudents, whichissomethingthat I believeisinfactdrivingwhat I'm doing.
I believethatmyobligationofmystudentsconstantlyistotellthemwhat I thinkandtomakethatasinformedandcarefulandopinionas I canpossiblymatter.
Matter, Master.
Andthat's what I doaskhimcanpanic a symbol.
I thinkthatyouunderstandthatifyoucometoparticipate, toappearbefore a Senatecommitteestudying a bill, regardlessofwhatwethinkofthequestionthat I mean, myquestionforyouisdoyoumake a differencebetweenyouropinion, whatyousayandthefactthattheuniversity, whichpaysyou, I believeunless I'm wrong, theuniversityconsidersyoutobeunderitslegalresponsibility, andsoyouarein a situationofauthorityoveryourstudents, andthismeansthatyoucangivean A oranafteryourstudentsinthecomponentsofthelegislation.
Thesthesislevelsofanalysisareunbelievablytightlylinked, andthetheevidencethatbiologicalfactorsplay a roleindetermininggenderidentityis, in a word, overwhelming.