Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It does indeed. It is a very charitable reading, at times too charitable. As we had discussed earlier, he misrepresented the bill he opposed so profitably. I could quibble with quite a few other passages, yet the gist of the article is still that what is true is not new and what is new is not exactly true.

I think I'm done with this.

by generic on Fri Nov 16th, 2018 at 08:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The article cited by Oui below says:
Legal experts reply that not using preferred pronouns does not constitute hate speech, so Peterson's objection that his individual freedom of speech was being restricted by Bill C-16  was ill-founded. More threateningly for Peterson, the Ontario Human Rights Commission does say that refusing to refer to a trans person by a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity will likely be discrimination when it takes place in employment, housing and services like education.
So it required the expert opinion to determine the misrepresentation. Even so, his new federal duty as a professor apparently overrides his human or academic freedom of expression. So he was taking a real stance.

P.S. Peterson's own take on his Amsterdam gig.

by das monde on Sat Nov 17th, 2018 at 02:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Before I looked up the Canadian code, I read Peterson's message from the UvA venue. The substance of it is incoherent and appears primarily to convey his aesthetic judgment about Dutch protesters' agitation for a remedy to his speech, which they agree is offensive to them.

The letter from UvA "employees and ... student organizations" --translated from Dutch to English and purportedly quoted in part by Peterson--appears incoherent, too, because this content does not specify UvA rights and responsibilities of any and all persons, required by laws of the Netherlands.

Do you see where Peterson's rhetorical appeal to a Canadian act, C-16, is headed? Nowhere. It is unreasonable, irrational, incoherent. Consider the limitations of his implied freedom from interdiction, or "rights," while resident in the Netherlands.

First, jurisdictional authority (NE, EU, statutes and case law).
Second, statutory (not colloquial) definition of a "hate speech" act.
Third, provisional rights, protections, and criminal penalty.
Fourth, exclusions, if any, by "protected class" of persons.
Fifth, and most important, exclusive use, thereby prohibition, of propaganda by government.

In the first instance, no expert legal opinion is needed to ferret Peterson's ignorance of the foregoing or his condition as an employee of the government of the Netherlands and appropriate law enforcement, when the people have demanded of government a remedy to his ignorance. And that remedy, foremos is the injunction of "his" exclusive freedom. Nadie es libre.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Sat Nov 17th, 2018 at 06:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even our coherence frames differ. What content is lawfully required in the letter from UvA employees, etc?

Briefly: Peterson knows well the agenda and outrage discipline at American Universities (as he cites some cases). If protestors have all rights to disrupt and threaten violence, and he has then only obligations, then he will surely seek to avoid those engagements.

As for hate speech laws and policies: Peterson had no illusions of the mission c r e e p, surely.

by das monde on Sat Nov 17th, 2018 at 08:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: