Here is Peterson explaining EXACTLY what he would do and has done when conversing with transgender individuals who would like to be addressed by a pronoun that does not coincide with their biological sex. He explains it coherently and succinctly.
2 Likes
Also forgot this part where she was extorting them while also harassing these poor women with dick pics. It seems she also uses a bunch of fake accounts to possibly harass others. I can imagine how seeing a bunch of people shitting on your small business, a insane person sending you dick pics threatening for you to pay up or face trial when you just came into a country to be terrifying.
https://spectator.us/jessica-yaniv-twitter-jail/
“Jessica” is picking the weakest people, some of them just immigrated trying to make a living and still learning English to screw with.
How is this not a concern for anyone who reads it?
2 Likes
Source please. I’ve seen nothing about 16 businesses.
Thanks
There have been multiple articles posted.
That show how 16 businesses were directly affected by Jessica… I’ve yet to see that. Please point out directly where
Thanks
It could be 16 businesses. It could also be 16 human rights complaints. It could also be a 16 year old girl.
It’s difficult to provide sources that you will approve of for everything related to Yaniv.
Again, why are you supporting Yaniv so strongly? It makes no sense to me.
1 Like
“Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”
IOTW, don’t become drug-dependent, make it worse by going on a crank diet consisting only of beef and sour apple cider, accuse the doctors trying to wean you off of it of being in the pocket of Big Pharma, and fly to Russia where they put you in an ‘induced coma’ for a week- and still try to tell everybody else why they’re so wrong. He was a sick man and all the adulation he received from fanboyz and the ludicrous advice he got from his crackpot daughter has taken its toll.
Stay classy mike.
2 Likes
His daughter went through many years almost entire life of different therapies to find a solution. Meat only diet resolved her problems. And dad went into it in support of her. That’s their story anyway.
Sounds like an odd diet to me, but you can get a lot of nutrition from meat only as long as you also eat the organs.
Here’s to crank diets. They work when nothing else does.
Big Pharma ought to answer for getting people addicted to drugs.
I would never go to Russia for medical treatment of any kind.
What if you had a bad case of free speech or effective capitalism?
It wasn’t in the particular article that came up at the start of this chapter of the discussion. I do remember something about it from last year or whenever, but not the details.
Anyway, we have an unsubstantiated claim that it was these complaints that drove two (or three?) businesses to failure, no details on how.
Of course it’s not desirable, but what are you going to do? Any law can be abused through false accusations. It’s not a new thing. If you abolish every law that’s susceptible to abuse, that means you abolish every law, period.
If you abolish human rights tribunals, as I said, people will still make legal complaints, including frivolous ones, and they will probably take longer (on average) to resolve. Can the system be improved? Of course it can, but blaming one particular law that didn’t actually criminalize anyone’s behavior is not going to fix anything.
What, exactly, will never happen? JP and his fans paint a picture of Canada filled with pronoun police, pronoun prisoners in pronoun gulags, and so on. What actually happened is that one person (apparently a fan of Yellow Peril, an earlier version of the “Great Replacement”, i.e. not your average leftista) filed a bunch of frivolous complaints and lost. If the particular law she invoked didn’t exist, she could still file frivolous complaints one way or another, and she would still lose. What are you going to do, go back to hand-to-hand combat to settle disputes? Oh right, you said in the other thread that you don’t want that. So you don’t want law, but you do want law. It’s a paradox. 
You speak as if jurisprudence didn’t exist. This is not actually new. It’s just that one category has been added to existing legislation that bans discrimination and hate speech. The courts have been over these things before. There are books about them. JP wants you to think it’s a revolutionary topsy-turvy thing. It’s not.
How about that line quoted earlier where JP refers to the trans rights movement as a “murderous ideology”? We were talking about whether or not he’s lied. (He said in another interview that “everyone lies” but he’s “certainly more careful about it now”.) Is it really a lie, or is it more accurately described as a delusion?
What he means, of course, is that the trans rights movement is a Communist Conspiracy™, just like secularism, labor unions, homosexuality, the Beatles, and many other things that have somehow not managed to destroy civilization.
I won’t claim to have a window into his soul, but I think it’s fair to say he has some kind of issue here, probably delusional (rather than mendacious), and probably made worse by his chronic anxiety and depression.
To be clear, BD, I do not condone frivolous legal complaints. What I have a problem with is this idea that the law is tyrannical because it inconveniences a few people. It’s like those extreme libertarian arguments that if taken to their logical conclusion would result in anarchy (which wouldn’t hold anyway because it’s a paradox, so you would end up with a government after all, and probably not better than the one you went to such trouble to get rid of).
Yes, governments do bad things, but we’re better off having a mediocre government than having none at all. Yes, laws get misused, but we’re better off having a mediocre legal system than none at all.
Andrew is on record saying things to the effect of most people don’t know how to handle money, if you give them a pile of money they’ll be broke within a year and so on. And whatever I think of his own business savvy (the discussion was actually about Trump’s business savvy and the number of times he’s declared bankruptcy throughout his life), I can’t say he’s 100% wrong. Have you never seen a badly run business? Have you never worked for one? Have you never wondered how in the hell a business managed to keep going for so long despite being run by such incompetent people?
I don’t know the people who owned and operated those two or three businesses that failed (compared to the 14 or 15 other businesses that didn’t fail despite being targeted). I don’t know how smart they are or aren’t. But I do know that shit happens in life, it’s been happening since long before the pronoun wars, it’s going to keep happening long after the pronoun wars are over, and if you’re not prepared for shit in general, you really shouldn’t take on the responsibility of running a business and having other people depend on you for their livelihood.
Again, the HRC is not tyrannizing the business community or immigrants. It’s there to get legal complaints about discrimination and hate speech sorted out faster than they would be in the regular court system. If you have evidence that HRC’s themselves are the problem, go ahead and share it. I don’t see that here.
But again, how would you have it? Add more steps to the complaint process? Meanwhile they’re trying to reduce steps in the regular courts to save time and avoid having cases thrown out due to delays. Yes, I agree that the system needs help, but that’s a much bigger problem than one person’s frivolous testicle complaints.
You’re asking for something unrealistic. You can dress up a frivolous complaint with irrelevant details to make it look serious. The clerk receiving it can’t just reject it on the spot if all the i’s are dotted.
True story: once upon a time (like 60 years ago) in the capital city of a certain other country, there was a peculiar woman who kept filing complaints about some nasty people using brain implants to spy on her. Every single person in the court knew she was crazy and knew she was going to lose every single time because she couldn’t prove her claims, but she always had all the paperwork in order and followed the proper procedures, so the consensus was, fine, let her have her day in court, and another day, and as many days as necessary, subject to the court schedule and all the usual rules. Equal treatment, even for crazies. 
And somehow that country is still standing and doing reasonably well. The system did work and still does, not perfectly, and certainly not in a Minority Report catch-them-before-they-do-anything way, but well enough.
Yes Canada can and should do better, but again, this one law is not the problem.
Because it’s a country that values freedom of speech. It’s the country of R v Zundel, among other things. Again, this law is not really new, it’s just building on existing law, which goes way, way back. These claims of the the sky falling need to be examined in context.
Well, calling people adherents of a “murderous ideology” isn’t exactly endearing. 
JP isn’t classy enough for you?
I mean, really Andrew, your lack of loyalty to your guru is shameful. 
True. It works for some people – ask the Inuit.
Please enlighten me. 
2 Likes
Ps. @BiggusDickus
There was a British reality show in the 2000’s, something like Risking It All, about entrepreneurs investing all their savings to try to make their dreams come true. One episode was about a couple opening a hair salon called no more blue, stylized with the word blue in red (ooh, clever!). I felt so sorry for them because I could tell, watching them go through all the steps of planning, that they really weren’t cut out for it.
They had many hurdles. An investor pulled out at the last minute. They pissed off their chief stylist by using his photo in their ads without his permission and had a nasty argument with him on camera. A branch of an established chain suddenly opened around the corner. They spent big bucks (pounds, sorry) on some fancy “organic” line of products, probably more than they could afford. And so on…
Oh yes, and the fire inspector showed up and called their lovely heritage building a deathtrap, so they had to make expensive modifications and not use part of it, or something.
No sign of them on the interwebs today, of course. 
I have a hunch that many people would rush to blame the fire inspector for the whole debacle. I wouldn’t.
Just trying to explain how I tend to look at these things. 
I don’t recall any poster arguing for banning human rights tribunals, removing Canada’s legal system, or ending government. In fact, I’m not sure that anyone has even called for the banning of C-16 in this thread.
What I do recall is several posters who stated that elements of C-16 (or, rather, existing human rights policy that C-16 would strengthen) could be misused. Which is what we are seeing.
I presume that even though your argument now is that all laws are misused doesn’t mean that they can’t be improved. Any laws that protect the rights of men who identify as women are problematic because they impact on the rights of biological women - which are generally far fewer than men. Therefore, the human rights of a tiny section of society have to be weighed against 50% of society. At this point C-16 (or, blah blah, existing human rights policy…) is being misused.
I don’t know if members of other identity groups are misusing human rights laws in Canada. I certainly would never call for the banning of human rights tribunals. Human rights are extremely important and biological women should have a say in them. They certainly shouldn’t become victims of them.
1 Like
Because they were small independent businesses started by recent immigrants and handling a legal assault from an unhinged individual was too risky for them.
To agree with @biggusdickus, no one is suggesting this.
He certainly doesn’t say he’s referring about trans rights specifically. He’s talking about what he would call the “postmodern left” in general. He says they’re “connected”, but one is not the subset of the other.
I would not entertain absurdly frivolous complaints. It should not have made it beyond the first reporting barrier.
Gotta link? I’m interested. The BCCRT says this:
Screening
The Tribunal reviews the complaint and decides whether to accept or reject it for filing. The Tribunal will check if the complaint was filed within the time limit. The Tribunal only processes complaints that contain a possible act of discrimination. Each year over 300 new complaints are rejected because they do not have this required information.
So, women offering vagina waxing services refusing to wax balls was deemed to be a “possible act of discrimination” at the first step in the process. It didn’t have to be and it shouldn’t have been.
So you think there’s absolutely no reason for any concerns? No ambiguity in the law that might be a problem? Peterson was actually warned by his university at one point about it.
I’m not arguing that Peterson was right about the effects of the bill, but only that his concerns are not totally unfounded and that he was not acting out of a “anti trans” agenda as was suggested above, but out of free speech concerns.
3 Likes
In most cases, only the lawyers win.
Iirc Andrew would like C-16 repealed. Abolishing the commissions/tribunals is a cause celebre in certain circles in Canada. (Look into the colorful history of Ezra Levant, Rebel Media and all that, if you have the patience. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.)
What I’m seeing is basically Chicken Little (Henny Penny to Brits?) and co. saying you said the sky would never fall, but look at what’s happened – people are suffering! and a response along the lines of but the sky didn’t fall, wasn’t going to fall, and still isn’t going to fall – all the suffering is fallout from hysteria, plus one tiny acorn that actually did fall, followed by more but people are suffering! and so on. If I had time, I would do a face meld of JP and Greta.
It’s a frivolous accusation, it was identified as a frivolous accusation, and the complainant was stuck with the bill. As I said, if this law didn’t exist, a mischief-minded person would use some other law for the same purpose and still (in all likelihood) not get away with it.
Meanwhile, there are good reasons for this law and others like it. No law is ever going to be perfect. This one has already withstood tests of whether it can be misused, some 16+ times. What would satisfy you? Locking Jessica up? Maybe that’s a good idea (and maybe she’s guilty of criminal harassment), but the law doesn’t come with a built in make a frivolous complaint and get locked up clause. Democratic societies tend to frown on that sort of thing, because… it can be misused (by the state, more easily than various other laws).
Some people have made claims of that nature, but I think that’s another discussion.
Once again, Bigge, they were not victims of any human rights tribunal.
@tempogain and @BiggusDickus, maybe you guys can clear something up. On the one hand, the hairy testicle complaints are so absurd that they shouldn’t have been entertained “even for a millisecond”, as Tempo said, and on the other hand, the hairy testicle complaints are so serious that people claiming they were ruined by the complaints should be 100% believed, and to speculate even for a millisecond that they might have lower than average competence in business or that there might have been other factors contributing to the failures (even though most of the businesses didn’t fail) is “utterly shameful”, as BD said. I do find these positions somewhat contradictory. 
The exact quotation:
He’s talking specifically about pronoun activists, who of course are also trans rights activists (not that all trans rights activists are pronoun activists). He doesn’t say outright that they’re murderers, but there appears to be a very clear line in his mind from such activism to genocide. Why else would he use the term “murderous ideology”?
Sorry, I don’t recall the woman’s name. (Source was personal communication from someone who worked at the court.) I’ll let you know if I find it.
Key word: possible. It’s like the difference between someone calling 911 to complain about a parking space being too small and someone calling 911 to report a murder. If it turns out the “murder” was in a video game, of course it will be tossed out (with costs charged to the complainant), but if that detail isn’t mentioned or is buried under mountains of citations or whatever, the people doing triage don’t necessarily have time to get to the bottom of it. A claim of a possible murder is made, so the police are dispatched; a claim of a possible act of discrimination is made, and the paperwork is in order, so the complaint gets “accepted” until the people whose job it is to get to the bottom of it have time to do their thing.
There’s always reason for concern about all kinds of things. People need to prioritize. JP is intelligent and, until recently, energetic. If he put half as much effort into some other cause that wasn’t compounded by his delusional state of mind, he could probably accomplish great things.
As for U of T, it’s a university, and there’s a lot to be said about universities, good and bad. It’s not a court, though, and it shouldn’t be mistaken for one.
I also value free speech and would object to being forced to use a set of 20 or 30 new pronouns that no-one even knows how to spell or pronounce (outside of a very small circle of specialists). That would be dystopian. Fortunately, it’s not what’s actually happening.
Remember the introduction of Ms.? 
It took time, but eventually it became accepted, and now it would be rude to insist on calling someone Miss after she’s stated a clear preference for Ms. Depending on the circumstances (e.g. whether you’re speaking as a private citizen or as an official), it might even constitute discrimination. Ditto calling someone a Mohammedan who prefers to be called a Muslim, calling someone a cross worshipper (a la Khomeini) who prefers to be called a Christian, and so on.
Language evolves, as do social customs, and it stands to reason that Mx. and a new pronoun or two may come to be accepted by the general public in the not so distant future. I may or may not like that (heck, I don’t even like “they” in the singular!), but I don’t think it’s tyrannical, and I don’t lose any sleep over the thought of it.
2 Likes
I’m not a fan of the regular extreme choices (argumentum ad absurdum?) along the lines of: are you arguing that C-16 will lead to the end of society as we know it, or that it’s no problem whatsoever? Come on, come on, which one is it then?
They seems to enjoy them, though.
2 Likes