Does Canada’s Bill C-16 Violate Free Speech or Protect Human Rights? | The Agenda

That's exactly the problem. It's uncivil if I do it, but justified if they enforce it. Double standards much? To be clear: I don't give a flying f * about what you do with your body, but don't fire me if I happen to use a personal pronoun that doesn't match your feeling. You had no problem in disregarding my opinion, and felt the need to protect their views. Please take the time to view this video ▶ this video And don't you dare cut me off of my right to free speech because you don't agree with me. I won't be offended if you ignore me.

I'm not sure if the compelled speech was actually adopted into law. I'm referring to Jordan Peterson's interview and senate hearing in relation to the law. [1] ▶ this video [2] link

Professor Nicholas Matte states it in this interview: ▶ this video Not a really exotic belief in the core social justice circles. Though advocates tend to avoid stating it outright, since it's so easy to attack and so ridiculous. So it's generally left implicit. E.g. They'll just say, "X field is only 30% women, we must fight the sexism that causes this", leaving it as an unstated assumption.

The idea (which is now becoming law in some places such as Canada [1]) is that some people do not identify as male and female but rather as something inbetween. So if you refer to them using the words 'he' or 'she' then that is an act of violence against them. The laws enacted then fine you if you refuse to use whatever pronoun they prefer in place of 'he' or 'she'. [2] Some examples are ze,them, zer, etc. 1. ▶ this video 2. link