Bill C16 - quite a forest fire
 

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2017/1...mbukkana-obey/

I completely agree with Peterson on this - like most sane people who don’t support such enforced control over free speech, debate and communication - total backwards step for democracy!

Rambukkana is a control freak, a bully and a complete tool!

Sadly Canada is going way down hill in my estimation. Preventing hate crimes by effectively trying to control peoples’ right to free-speech and debate is pointless and will only cause more problems than it solves. You don’t change peoples’ thought processes through force - when will people learn! Very sinister development and one that will not prevail! Talk about a war of words!

"The question is: is he right? Have entire lines of thought been criminalized in Canada by C-16?* The answer is no, not yet, but the practical effect of Bill C-16, which deals with gender identity and gender expression is already seen in the assertions of Professor Rambukkana."

From the article itself.


So I do agree with what you're saying in principle Brillo, and I 100% agree that forcing people to change their speech can never and will never change their thoughts. It just puts a plug in them, causing the "pressure" of those thoughts to build and eventually explode. Free speech and open dialogue is the ONLY way forward.

However, as per the above quote, it seems like in this case the problem is not entirely the bill itself or Canadian law, but more that one academic on a power-trip has misinterpreted the law... Either genuinely misunderstanding it, or deliberately pretending it means something else to use as an intimidation tactic (and knowing the managerial side of academia, it's sadly likely to be the latter).

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2e1cf...sm=12&fit=max&

Wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...night-leave-eu

Sorry I don’t trust a word either said or reported by the Guardian. One-sided drivel on most occasions.

The enforcement of such laws will likely have the opposite effect - and as I said lead to more problems than solved. You cannot force people into your way of thinking - legally or otherwise.

The article in the OP seems hopelessly biased so I'm gonna go read up on this story from some varied sources to get a grasp of what it's about.

I don't really see anything about restricting free speech in there or imprisoning people if you refer to them with the wrong pronoun?

Not this occasion, I did try but it didn't work to include emails sent from Aaron Banks that are included in the report, that was the reason for the link. These emails are being scrutinised now as part of his questioning by the select committee.

One email sent on the 13th of December states,

' Can we do a daily mail front page but also look at each tory MP rebel and see what we can find about them re expenses scandal and any other interests.'

The head of social media strategy at Leave.EU then asked,

' Is saying there must be consequesses for their actions too menacing post- Jo Cox'

He replies,

'No we need the push deselection by local branch target chairman etc let's discuss tomorrow'

So there you have it you can force people to think what you want them to think, you get your media friends to put on the front page of a tabloid to be read at several million breakfast tables.

THat’s not forcing, that’s encouraging. Hardly the same as creating laws that try to change thought processes by threats of criminal punishment. They are a world apart on both the effectiveness and morality charts.

As does the 'blog' you have in the OP.

'Have entire lines of thought been criminalized in Canada by C-16? The answer is no'

What is the point of this whole thing?... that C-16 might be misinterpreted by those who claim it does more than it says on the tin... or it has the potential to?

Nah, I think what is clear here is that this is a hatchet job specifically targeting one Nathan Ramukkana, similarly it parallels the email I mentioned, there is someone we don't agree with... we must discredit them, this opinion piece attempts to do just that, and that alone.

This opinion piece was based on the fact the Bill exists and all that that entails and the bullying behaviour of Ramukkana to that teaching assistant and in general. I picked that particular article because I agreed with its stance just as you do when you present many a Guardian article as reference.

Again, though, even the article you posted clearly states that these laws do NOT exist and are NOT being implemented. The issue is that this higher-up academic is being dishonest about the bill in order to intimidate his colleague and to try to stifle her teaching style that he doesn't agree with.

Which is a huge problem, yes, but a very different problem that goes on all the time. People try to scare people into (and out of) all sorts of things by lying about what is and isn't legal, and (very sadly) there are a lot of these people in high or middle positions within academics. Like to throw their weight around and do NOT like to be questioned, and will happily be dishonest in order to bully other staff and students into silence. These people don't belong in Universities, at all, but it's a problem everywhere.

Yes it's a fact the bill exists... the opinion of what that means re free speech is a fabrication.
The behaviour of the academics in that instance were questioned and no action taken, it has no bearing on C-16 or Mr Ramukkana in relation to their respective effectiveness.

I'm not sure how you equate someones musings with a reputable news source but I'll leave it there.

That's assuming he understood the relatively new legislation himself... there's nothing to say he wasn't misinformed too.

Given what can be assumed about his personal beliefs from his chosen areas of study, and how toxic and combative I know the management side of academia can be at times, I very much doubt it and suspect he was using it deliberately to further a specific agenda.

Admittedly, of course, that's just personal opinion / suspicion.

From the Link
2016 clip Jordan at his University in Canada.
At the start.


Yes Jordan
is right - No need for violence.