Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Troublesome pronouns in Canada
Premier Kathleen Wynne thinks we should replace words such as “mother” and “father” with gender-neutral (neutered?) terms such as “birth parent.” The federal Liberals, meanwhile, with Bill C-16, want to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of “prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
You can debate whether any of these measures are warranted, but there’s no question they are antithetical to free speech.
Just ask University of Toronto psychology Prof. Jordan Peterson. He was warned by university administrators to stop speaking publicly about his insistence on using gender-specific terms – “he” and “she,” in particular. “I don’t recognize a person’s right to determine what pronoun I use to address them,” he said in a YouTube posting. Peterson argues that Bill C-16, if passed, will make it a criminal offence to fail to use a person’s preferred pronoun regardless of whether that preference makes any rational sense.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Political Correctness carried to a further extreme. Foolish Liberals.
So, let me get this straight: The very people who are claiming to be discriminated against and bullied by society are now using the government to bully everyone else who does not comply with their demands?
Federally legislated compliance of this sort is Tyranny.
Speaking out against something is not phobic. It is not illegal. It is necessary to open a dialog between the two sides, which would then lead to compromise and a resolution.
And, yes, there ARE two sides to this gender identity issue. Both must be heard. The government should not be involved in forcing 98% of the population to conform to the demands of 2%. That is not to say that the 2% should be ignored, just that this legislative bullying must end to allow a true dialog to take place, no stifle it before it's begun.
Although the posted article concerns events in Candada, the issue is germane to the United States also.
We already have colleges and universities that control speech by designating what nous and pronouns will be used, suppressing non-liberal speakers and expression of religious belief, and dictating what costumes may and may not be worn.
President Obama has indicated he wishes he could silence Fox News and conservative talk radio. Others have expressed a desire to silence the Drudge Report. All that has stopped them is the First Amendment.
Democrats on the FEC have indicated for several years they wish to muzzle conservative advertisements and lately have indicated they wish to deny the right to post political speech on YouTube - conservative political speech, that is.
It is only because the FEC is by law made up of three Democrats and three Republicans that those desires haven't come to fruition.
Which brings us to the most important issue in the current election. The Supreme Court. Will it be conservative and continue to defend the constitution, or liberal and gut it?
Think about that in the voting booth. Please.
Leftard bullies want your poor Untied States (untied = unshackled) to go the way of communism. I bet Lenin and Stalin are sporting tumescent bones in their graves.
If some mincing, mealy-mouthed "it" or "ze" demands some sort of conversation from you (yep, these days all they do is demand), just refuse to speak to it and move on. No good will come of any communicative intercourse with such PC-demented freaks as all they seek is argument in order to vilify, thrash and demand (again!) fully undeserving apologies from their perceived opponent/s.
Note how I just described a large portion of teenage girls in a "relationship", where many of whom think they can get away with pouted foot-stomping and physical attack without reprisal such as a thorough dumping or locking in a police cell for assault.
They're already oxygen thieves, so don't give them any more fuel.
We have ben warned about the sinister plans of evil commies why else has the CPUSA backing Clinton
Post a Comment