Lindsay Shepherd was not prosecuted under the Canadian law in question. You assert that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating that law. You didn't provide a source for that assertion and I was unable to find any confirmation. I did find a quote from one of her professors apparently claiming that making arguments such as Peterson's 'run counter' to the law. Again, this is simply ignorance on the part of the professor, who despite not being a lawyer took it upon himself to interpret the law. Assuming you can support your claim that the 'diversity officer' accused Shepherd of violating the law, that doesn't mean that the diversity officer's accusation is valid.Forty Two wrote:It's not, actually, since we saw the way administrators believe the law applies in the Lindsey Shepard case, wherein the diversity officer - trained specifically in that area - declared that she had violated the very law that Jordan Peterson was chirping about.L'Emmerdeur wrote:Jordan Peterson isn't a lawyer, and his po-faced denunciation of the the Canadian law is based on a misunderstanding of what it actually does.
This was an internal university matter, and in fact the university president and vice chancellor apologized to Shepherd and acknowledged that the university had mishandled the situation. The professor mentioned above made a public apology as well.
The sentence immediately before the one you quoted appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the court's ruling, the relevant phrase being 'actively encouraging hatred.' Personally I believe that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing or encouraging hatred but unlike you, I don't think it's impossible to know when somebody is doing so.Forty Two wrote:I'd love to read that opinion. Because that statement is clear as mud. If you think you know what speech "against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups" is expressed "in a manner not objectively seen [by whom?] to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects" then you're fooling yourself. That's one of the big problems in Canadian law in this area. It's really impossible to know where the line is.L'Emmerdeur wrote:"People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.
'Diversity officers' at universities don't 'apply the law.' At most they could refer the case to the proper authorities, and all indications are that if that had happened the authorities would have refused to prosecute, because the referral would have been based on a misunderstanding of the law.Forty Two wrote:Sure, but when you have diversity officers at major Canadian universities applying the law as if presenting a discussion of pronoun use and such in a neutral manner was transphobia and hate speech, then they are categorizing exactly what Lindsey Shepard did, for example, as active encouragement of hatred. Without her audio recording, it is not inconceivable that she ultimately would have been drummed out of Laurier for exactly the reasons Jordan Peterson warned.
The point is that Peterson has never been prosecuted under the Ontario code, and as far as I know has never even been accused by authorities of breaking that law despite all his grandstanding.Forty Two wrote:Peterson has addressed that many times. That's his main issue - not the text of C-16, but the interpreting guidance from the Ontario human rights commission.L'Emmerdeur wrote:What's more, Ontario—where Peterson works—already has human rights protections for transgender people in the provincial human rights code, thanks to a bill, virtually identical to C-16, that was passed by the Ontario legislature in 2012.
They can make whatever characterizations they like; that doesn't mean that their interpretation of the law is correct. Nor do they need the support of the law to carry out ridiculous internal hearings.Forty Two wrote:Sure, and things like what lindsey shepard did - playing a 4 minute clip of a conversation about pronoun usage - is then characterized by administrators as transphobic and hate speech.
Legal ramifications of the Canadian law can be clarified by the courts. That is an entirely separate issue from internal guidelines and their interpretation at universities. If the universities overstep their authority that can also be addressed legally.Forty Two wrote:No, but it is, according to trans activists, and in given examples that actually occurred, in the minds of administrators and professors, examples of "hatred."