Citat:
Jag lyckas inte få med de texter du citerat i detta svar, men konstaterar ett par saker:
Det kom fram mycket intressant information i länken du postade, och det finns oroväckande och märkliga inslag i denna historia, såsom fallet med polisen och att OHRC öppnar för möjligheten att till att underlåtelse att använda korrekt pronomen kan vara ett brott.
Samtidigt har det ju detta gällt åtminstone i Ontario (där även Peterson jobbar) i över fem år.
Sen är det ju också så att man kan vinkla sina argumet genom att ta med vissa saker och utelämna andra. Som från samma sida och då detta:
Citat:
.
There is no factual basis for the claim that incorrect pronoun use will lead to negative consequences.
The bill does two things:
It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes under the Canadian Human Rights Act
It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes to the criminal code, specifically to a section about hate propaganda and to provisions about sentencing hate crimes.
Regarding 1., there has to be an actual discriminatory act (such as refusing housing or services), it is not enough to express an opinion or use wrong pronouns.
Regarding 2., to be convicted of hate propaganda, one has to actually, intentionally, incite hatred or promote genocide, so it doesn't apply.
The Canadian Bar Association agrees with this assessment:
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.
[...]
Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions.
[...]
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens
Brenda Cossman - a professor of law - agrees with this assessment:
I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada
[...]
“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about
The bill does two things:
It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes under the Canadian Human Rights Act
It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes to the criminal code, specifically to a section about hate propaganda and to provisions about sentencing hate crimes.
Regarding 1., there has to be an actual discriminatory act (such as refusing housing or services), it is not enough to express an opinion or use wrong pronouns.
Regarding 2., to be convicted of hate propaganda, one has to actually, intentionally, incite hatred or promote genocide, so it doesn't apply.
The Canadian Bar Association agrees with this assessment:
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.
[...]
Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:
The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions.
[...]
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens
Brenda Cossman - a professor of law - agrees with this assessment:
I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada
[...]
“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about
Jag orkar inte mer i kväll, men läs Canadian Bar Associatonss utlåtande en gång till, bör ju vara landets skarpaste juristhjärnor som håller till där.
De har i alla fall den största och bredaste kunskapen om hur domstolar faktisk agerar i aldnet
