Whose deaths (outside of friends and family) will affect you the most?

Big Boss™ Remastered | Mythic Card Master
 
more |
XBL: Badman Kakarot
PSN: GurrenSwagann
Steam:
ID: Big Boss
IP: Logged

13,685 posts
Jacob Potila was actually a Jacob Flotilla of lies.- WarTurkey
I'd probably feel down if Ringo Starr went. I was obsessed with Thomas the Tank Engine.
why are you so lame😂😂😂

Yeah, loving a show aimed at kids, while being a kid myself is such an oddity right? Fuck!


FatherlyNick | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: FatherlyNick
PSN: FatherlyNick
Steam: FatherlyNick
ID: FatherlyNick
IP: Logged

7,595 posts
Hey.
I came here from b.net after a few Floods invited me. None of them post on either b.net nor here anymore, which is sad. I was still active on b.net until for some bizarre reason, b.net admins locked out people who have not played Destiny. Even if you wanted to post on the offtopic section. After that, I fully moved here and have not returned to b.net since.
Please come play Halo with me.
Any YouTuber I watch regularly.


Big Boss™ Remastered | Mythic Card Master
 
more |
XBL: Badman Kakarot
PSN: GurrenSwagann
Steam:
ID: Big Boss
IP: Logged

13,685 posts
Jacob Potila was actually a Jacob Flotilla of lies.- WarTurkey
I'm not sure if I'd personally be sad, but Stan Lee passing would be... weird. Like, he's just always been around. That's going to be hell of a downer day on the internet.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
From what I can tell, the contents of the C16 bill seem to have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by many – Peterson included. There’s numerous articles and expert opinions that have covered this in depth. The effects of the law have been discussed in detail by professors of law and the Canadian Bar Association. Reading the text of the law itself and the accompanying explanatory notes should help clear much of that up.

The law changes two things. One, that gender identity is now explicitly recognized in the criminal code for sentencing and the crimes of advocating genocide and the willful promotion / public incitement of hatred. Using the wrong pronoun does not fall under this by any stretch of the imagination. Two, it adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This is nothing new and has been the case where Peterson lives for 5 years already. It relates to discrimination in certain areas such as employment and housing, meaning that you cannot do things like deny people jobs or rent based solely on the fact that they’re transgender. As the Canadian Department of Justice has already confirmed, this will not provide transgenders with special rights. There’s several other articles out there that include interviews with legal experts and overviews of Canadian court cases / official statements on this topic, but I’ll just give you a few more if you want to go through them. Warning, the last one is far too personally negative when it comes to Peterson but gives a very lengthy (6000 words) and detailed overview of the law and what it entails.

So yeah, in my opinion many blanket statements do amount to fearmongering and give the impression that people will face criminal charges for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson himself has admitted he doesn’t actually know the legal side of things very well, yet he still presents himself as an expert talking at length about farfetched and very questionable interpretations of the law that has actually already been applied in most Canadian regions for years without any of the concerns turning out to be true. In my opinion, the "SJW's are going after free speech and you're going to be in trouble for not catering to gender whims" narrative seems very unsubstantiated here.

As for the Damore memo, there are again very extensive factchecks that present alternative evidence, research and studies that challenge or add nuance to his claims. This 40 page overview by a behavioral science and evolutionary biology PhD candidate seems to cover much of it. It includes over a 100 references and concludes with links to numerous books and other analyses by scientists in a variety of fields. From what I can tell, Damore appears to be pushing an evolutionary biology narrative that is outdated and no longer supported by the majority. He cites studies and research of which the authors themselves have since said that his conclusions are not in line with their work or not necessarily applicable to the situation he’s referring to. The core of much of this resistance seems to be that while he gets the basics of some things right (there are of course some differences between men and women), Damore has overstated much of them, selectively ignored heaps of recent evidence challenging some of his points, paid little to no attention to how discrimination and social patterns can perpetuate inequalities rather than innate biological differences, and drew implications regarding human abilities and work skills that are inaccurate, all without recognizing the nuances and pitfalls of research in this field. One of the biggest issues with his memo is how it incorrectly appears to present particular schools of thought as fact and reflecting consensus while this is not the case at all, and how it misses findings in neuroscience that suggest conditioning and culture are at play rather than the biology he implies.

Damore raises some sound and relevant points and this discussion should be had, but a good amount of what he says simply lacks says nuance or is selectively interpreting evidence to make very questionable claims – as does much of the criticism depicting him as some sexist monster.


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

6,901 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours
From what I can tell, the contents of the C16 bill seem to have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by many – Peterson included. There’s numerous articles and expert opinions that have covered this in depth. The effects of the law have been discussed in detail by professors of law and the Canadian Bar Association. Reading the text of the law itself and the accompanying explanatory notes should help clear much of that up.

The law changes two things. One, that gender identity is now explicitly recognized in the criminal code for sentencing and the crimes of advocating genocide and the willful promotion / public incitement of hatred. Using the wrong pronoun does not fall under this by any stretch of the imagination. Two, it adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This is nothing new and has been the case where Peterson lives for 5 years already. It relates to discrimination in certain areas such as employment and housing, meaning that you cannot do things like deny people jobs or rent based solely on the fact that they’re transgender. As the Canadian Department of Justice has already confirmed, this will not provide transgenders with special rights. There’s several other articles out there that include interviews with legal experts and overviews of Canadian court cases / official statements on this topic, but I’ll just give you a few more if you want to go through them. Warning, the last one is far too personally negative when it comes to Peterson but gives a very lengthy (6000 words) and detailed overview of the law and what it entails.

So yeah, in my opinion many blanket statements do amount to fearmongering and give the impression that people will face criminal charges for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson himself has admitted he doesn’t actually know the legal side of things very well, yet he still presents himself as an expert talking at length about farfetched and very questionable interpretations of the law that has actually already been applied in most Canadian regions for years without any of the concerns turning out to be true. In my opinion, the "SJW's are going after free speech and you're going to be in trouble for not catering to gender whims" narrative seems very unsubstantiated here.

As for the Damore memo, there are again very extensive factchecks that present alternative evidence, research and studies that challenge or add nuance to his claims. This 40 page overview by a behavioral science and evolutionary biology PhD candidate seems to cover much of it. It includes over a 100 references and concludes with links to numerous books and other analyses by scientists in a variety of fields. From what I can tell, Damore appears to be pushing an evolutionary biology narrative that is outdated and no longer supported by the majority. He cites studies and research of which the authors themselves have since said that his conclusions are not in line with their work or not necessarily applicable to the situation he’s referring to. The core of much of this resistance seems to be that while he gets the basics of some things right (there are of course some differences between men and women), Damore has overstated much of them, selectively ignored heaps of recent evidence challenging some of his points, paid little to no attention to how discrimination and social patterns can perpetuate inequalities rather than innate biological differences, and drew implications regarding human abilities and work skills that are inaccurate, all without recognizing the nuances and pitfalls of research in this field. One of the biggest issues with his memo is how it incorrectly appears to present particular schools of thought as fact and reflecting consensus while this is not the case at all, and how it misses findings in neuroscience that suggest conditioning and culture are at play rather than the biology he implies.

Damore raises some sound and relevant points and this discussion should be had, but a good amount of what he says simply lacks says nuance or is selectively interpreting evidence to make very questionable claims – as does much of the criticism depicting him as some sexist monster.
Sounds like you need to clean your bloody room BUCKO


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

6,901 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours
The Queen probably.

Not because of any sentimental reasons, but the whole country's probably gonna grind to a halt when she goes.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
Sounds like you need to clean your bloody room BUCKO
Yeah, I was pretty bored. I had exam supervision and it's hours of just sitting there.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,255 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
Sounds like you need to clean your bloody room BUCKO
Yeah, I was pretty bored. I had exam supervision and it's hours of just sitting there.
what a fucking loser😂😂😂


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
Sounds like you need to clean your bloody room BUCKO
Yeah, I was pretty bored. I had exam supervision and it's hours of just sitting there.
what a fucking loser😂😂😂
can't believe I haven't killed myself yet wtf


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,324 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
Spoiler
From what I can tell, the contents of the C16 bill seem to have been exaggerated and mischaracterized by many – Peterson included. There’s numerous articles and expert opinions that have covered this in depth. The effects of the law have been discussed in detail by professors of law and the Canadian Bar Association. Reading the text of the law itself and the accompanying explanatory notes should help clear much of that up.

The law changes two things. One, that gender identity is now explicitly recognized in the criminal code for sentencing and the crimes of advocating genocide and the willful promotion / public incitement of hatred. Using the wrong pronoun does not fall under this by any stretch of the imagination. Two, it adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. This is nothing new and has been the case where Peterson lives for 5 years already. It relates to discrimination in certain areas such as employment and housing, meaning that you cannot do things like deny people jobs or rent based solely on the fact that they’re transgender. As the Canadian Department of Justice has already confirmed, this will not provide transgenders with special rights. There’s several other articles out there that include interviews with legal experts and overviews of Canadian court cases / official statements on this topic, but I’ll just give you a few more if you want to go through them. Warning, the last one is far too personally negative when it comes to Peterson but gives a very lengthy (6000 words) and detailed overview of the law and what it entails.

So yeah, in my opinion many blanket statements do amount to fearmongering and give the impression that people will face criminal charges for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson himself has admitted he doesn’t actually know the legal side of things very well, yet he still presents himself as an expert talking at length about farfetched and very questionable interpretations of the law that has actually already been applied in most Canadian regions for years without any of the concerns turning out to be true. In my opinion, the "SJW's are going after free speech and you're going to be in trouble for not catering to gender whims" narrative seems very unsubstantiated here. [/spoiler]

Spoiler
As for the Damore memo, there are again very extensive factchecks that present alternative evidence, research and studies that challenge or add nuance to his claims. This 40 page overview by a behavioral science and evolutionary biology PhD candidate seems to cover much of it. It includes over a 100 references and concludes with links to numerous books and other analyses by scientists in a variety of fields. From what I can tell, Damore appears to be pushing an evolutionary biology narrative that is outdated and no longer supported by the majority. He cites studies and research of which the authors themselves have since said that his conclusions are not in line with their work or not necessarily applicable to the situation he’s referring to. The core of much of this resistance seems to be that while he gets the basics of some things right (there are of course some differences between men and women), Damore has overstated much of them, selectively ignored heaps of recent evidence challenging some of his points, paid little to no attention to how discrimination and social patterns can perpetuate inequalities rather than innate biological differences, and drew implications regarding human abilities and work skills that are inaccurate, all without recognizing the nuances and pitfalls of research in this field. One of the biggest issues with his memo is how it incorrectly appears to present particular schools of thought as fact and reflecting consensus while this is not the case at all, and how it misses findings in neuroscience that suggest conditioning and culture are at play rather than the biology he implies.

Damore raises some sound and relevant points and this discussion should be had, but a good amount of what he says simply lacks says nuance or is selectively interpreting evidence to make very questionable claims – as does much of the criticism depicting him as some sexist monster.
In regards to Bill C-16, I will have to take the time to go through all the info on it. I've read the bill itself and it appears to be very vague in its wording. I'm not a legal expert so I'm not going to make any conclusions, but it looks to a layman like me that much of the bill is left up to interpretation. IE: what constitutes bias, what constitutes gender expression, what constitutes hate etc.

One of the answers in the Department of Justice link you posted seems to confirm that:

Quote
A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

If I am a professor at a university, and I refuse to refer to someone as zer, what in the law specifically draws the distinction between that and illegal discrimination? If I am a student, and I hold a protest  with signs stating that there are only two genders, what in the law distinguishes that from hate propaganda? What constitutes these things is unspecified. In the first instance, does the court not have the possibility to rule that my refusal to call someone zer is discrimination? Ergo, would that not be a ruling that I would have to refer to said person as zer under the penalty of law? There are claims that the bill does not apply to university classrooms, but I don't see that defined anywhere in the law. Where does it state that these laws to not apply in that setting?

 I've never seen Peterson claim that people would be thrown in jail for mis-gendering someone, however I have seen various people state that the law can inevitably lead to a jail sentence through contempt of court if one refuses to pay the fines levied against them for the courts ruling that what they did was discrimination.

Going through that, nothing seems to address the issue of interpretation. In fact it only seems to reinforce that it is a problem to me.

I'll have to look over the Damore links later, I know research evolves overtime and new findings are always coming out. I just hope most of it is strictly fact/research-oriented, and I don't see a bunch of mess trying to tell me the guy was pushing an 'alt-right' agenda or anything, because I watched multiple interviews with him and he didn't give me that impression at all. He just seems like a very analytical person that offered input in what ways he understands best, statistical data specifically. That his cited stats needed updating seems far more reasonable and likely than him trying to push a partisan narrative.
Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 03:42:06 PM by Aether


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
I'll get back to you shortly, btw.


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,324 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I'll get back to you shortly, btw.
Ah okay but I'll have to read it later because I'm totally out of it and can't concentrate on anything right now, so take all the time you need.


Nixeris | Member
 
more |
XBL: Nixris
PSN:
Steam: Nixeris
ID: Nixeris
IP: Logged

41 posts
 
Mark Hamill and Henry Rollins off the top of my head.


Desty | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DTEDesty
IP: Logged

9,510 posts
 
A customer I knew quite well might've been murdered. I feel indifferent


Doctor Doom | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Lord Keksworth
IP: Logged

7,306 posts
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
Stan Lee, I guess? The more I learn about him the more disappointed I get but he's altogether a cool old guy nonetheless.

I don't idolize celebrities anyway so I don't think I'd be "affected" in the way you probably mean.


 
TBlocks
| Hero of the Wild
 
more |
XBL: TBlocks13
PSN: Trist5382
Steam: Trist5382
ID: TBlocks
IP: Logged

17,352 posts
#13
One of the most beloved Toronto Maple Leafs alumni, Johnny Bower died recently and it had a bit more of an impact than I expected. I think it's just because he struck me as such a kind and honest man and I was really hoping he'd be alive to see the Leafs win their next championship as he was the goalie for the last one in 1967. He had such a love for the game and for the fans it was just sad to lose someone who had contributed so much and seemed like such a good person.


Kitsune 狐 | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: KitsuneXHunter
Steam: KitsuneOverlord
ID: Kitsunekun
IP: Logged

7,746 posts
 
I cried when Lil Peep passed away. That fuck boi was talented on a different level.


TiocfaidhArLa | Newbie
 
more |
XBL: RlCHARD NlX0N
PSN: J_R_Cash_
Steam:
ID: TiocfaidhArLa
IP: Logged

2 posts
 
As of now, the only one to come to mind is Bob Dylan. I've listened to his music since I was 6 or so.
 
Spoiler
And let's be honest, his time here is limited. He's 80+ and all those years of drugs took a toll on him.


Blankina | Heroic Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Blankina
IP: Logged

772 posts
 
Miura, most of all. I've been into Berserk since my dad (inadvertently) introduced me to it at nine. I don't expect it to ever end at this rate due to Miura's obvious burnout of the series, but the moment he's actually unable to continue? I've been waiting for an end for fourteen years, and I can't imagine what those who actually experienced it from the beginning might feel if he were to die.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
I think most of your criticism stems from a lack of legal knowledge. Law is a pretty complicated area. In many countries it takes around 5 years of higher legal education and several more of training just before you're even allowed to take the bar exam, yet nowadays just about everyone thinks they're qualified or able to just skim through a bill and have it all figured out. I'm not saying that this what you're doing and I think law should be more accessible to all, but this is an issue that can snowball out of control pretty quickly (remember the whole "omg California is making it legal to infect people with AIDS and to prostitute children?!" outrage?). Even I have to be careful because I'm obviously not well versed in Canadian law, but both Peterson and you have admitted to know very little about law in general - and that is kind of problematic here.

Neutral and open terms are a necessity of legislation. This has always been the case and won't change. Strictly defining every term will always result in unforseen complications and outdated rules. Define a "network search" as the seizure and investigation of all the digital systems and the network on the premises of the warrant, and a few years later the arrival of cloud computing makes it so that the police cannot access anything stored in a cloud drive without new legislation being passed (this actually happened in many countries). There is no way to provide a complete list of everything that could possibly constitute as bias or discrimination, and even if you try to provide a conclusive definition you're always going to be leaving things open to interpretation. Common legal definitions of discrimination include terms like "impairing equality of opportunity" or "unfair treatment". What's considered unfair? What's equality? What kind of actions (or inactions) would be impairing it? You need to leave sufficient room for interpretation so that courts, scholars and public institutions can help fill them in and draw a consistent line applicable to a multitude of different situations. I understand your criticism, but they are somewhat misplaced in this instance as the law is no more vague or open for interpretation than others, and your concerns kind of relate to the fundamental aspects of our legal system.

C-16 is no longer a bill. It’s a law that no one will refer to again because it simply amends existing provisions. That alone should answer several of your questions and is part of the reason why this is a difficult topic. If you don’t have the necessary background knowledge on the instruments and policies that this law changes, it's almost impossible to have an informed opinion. It’s like trying to understand an advanced political concept like gerrymandering or filibustering without even knowing what the Senate is, if that makes sense. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies exclusively to federally regulated employers and service providers like governmental agencies, railroads and banks. This does not include higher education. The Act (linked earlier) also clearly lists and explains what is considered a “discriminatory practice”, being things like rejecting employment, refusing access to commercial premises and denying goods or services offered. The closest thing the law mentions is “differentiating adversely” but this refers to situations like letting black people eat at your restaurant but only if they sit in the “coloreds only” section at the back – not refusing to call a student some specific term (which again doesn’t even fall under the scope of the law in the first place).

The professor not calling someone zer doesn’t count as illegal discrimination as it is defined in the law and falls outside of its scope of application. The tribunal could not rule this discrimination. The student holding up the sign wouldn’t be found guilty of hate propaganda because it’s limited to calls for genocide and representations that are “intended to circulate extreme feelings of enmity”. Canada has several Supreme Court Cases on this that set the bar for hate speech extremely high. Much worse comments than that about Jews have been considered acceptable in the past, so there’s no way a sign like that would break the law.

As for the fine resulting in a jail sentence, I don’t exactly know how that would work in this situation. Under the Human Rights Act, there’s a special Commission investigating claims of discrimination and offering remediation. Only then and if nothing gets resolved will the case go to a special Tribunal, meaning that a man like Peterson couldn’t simply be sued for this. I don’t know what this means for the possibility of an imprisonment sentence, but a criminal sanction in a civil case is almost always reserved as a last resort. They can, for example, simply turn to the employer and collect the fine from the person’s wages or capital. Contempt is a very high threshold that is usually reserved for cases where someone hides behind a legal construct (for example, an independent businessman dividing assets in companies so that they cannot be claimed) so that there’s no way for money to obtained from him while it’s abundantly clear he can pay.

What you consider a problem, I really don’t think is much of one. It’s a gripe applicable to the vast majority of laws that deals with the fundamental workings of our legal systems. C-16 is not a drastic change opening the floodgates for SJW abuse. As the articles I linked before already covered, transgender protection and anti-discrimination laws with broader scopes of application have already been in force at the provincial level for 5+ years without any of these worst case scenarios actually happening. So I stand by what I said. Either Peterson and the people arguing these points are largely uninformed, in which case an intellectual like him owes it to himself to show some restraint, get properly educated and talk to legal experts for advice – not write articles and give talks that will rile up his many followers on an issue that is far outside his area of expertise and that he knows little of. That, or he’s deliberately being disingenuous by misrepresenting and exaggerating things. I don't know much about him so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but this doesn't inspire much confidence. I'm a legal scholar and law is my area of expertise yet still I'm wary talking about this because it's Canadian law and not my preferred field. There is no way that I would even consider publicly talking about psychology because I don't think I'm qualified to do that. Especially if I had the following and audience that Peterson does, I would do everything I could to educate myself and even then be reluctant to speak on this from a pretend position of authority exactly because of how many people would get the wrong idea if I was wrong. Yet here he is speaking to thousands on something he knows little of, and his words clearly did leave an impact on some (you seemingly being an example). As another academic, that alone makes me wary of him and question how focused on truth he really is. I agree with his opinion on not being forced to use pronouns, but this is a letdown.


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,324 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I understand your gripes with Peterson, and I think they're reasonable. That laws must be open to some degree of interpretation isn't something I am personally against. I would never expect the law to have to absolutely define every specific thing that constitutes discrimination.

Contemplating it further, I think the issue I have with the vagueness of the wording is that it doesn't adequately define discrimination or hate propaganda etc. in terms of the consequences of such. IE: an action that is preventing a person from receiving a service from a business, or messages that are inciting violence against a certain group. This would allow a court to better define what actions constitute these terms in my eyes.

You say that the refusal to refer to someone as zer is not defined as discrimination in the law, but I'm not seeing how, exactly. I'm sorry if I'm not understanding the law very well, It just doesn't seem to make that distinction.

Reading this section of the bill:

Quote
that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices

It would seem the law places the responsibility on the courts to determine whether or not an action, such as refusing to refer to someone with a gender-neutral pronoun, is a violation of a person's right to "an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated etc."

What exactly is stopping the court from ruling that the refusal to refer to someone with gender-neutral pronouns is a violation of this right? Can they not make the case that doing so is preventing someone from, "making for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated?"
Last Edit: February 15, 2018, 02:30:38 PM by Aether


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,269 posts
 
Just to be clear though, I have nothing against Peterson. I agree with some of the things he says and it’s clear that he’s a reasonable, intelligent and accomplished man, which is exactly why I find this disappointing. Whether he likes it or not, him being a successful academic will always give him a certain position of authority, and I think that comes with some responsibilities. I have turned down requests for TV interviews because I didn’t consider myself qualified to speak on that specific topic and because I knew that they’d put a banner next to my name saying something along the lines of “legal expert / scholar” that would give undue legitimacy to my claims. Even if I got things wrong because it was outside of my area of expertise, people would still believe me and take my opinion for granted because of my perceived authority. For Peterson, a rock star academic with an enormous social media following and fan base, that effect and the potential fallout would be a hundred times worse yet he still gave public speeches, made YouTube videos and wrote news articles on a topic he himself admitted to know little about and actually got key parts of it wrong. And for someone who seems to be so focused on reason and fact, that just seems like a really poor decision. 

I think there’s two things you are still misunderstanding about the law. One, its scope of application. Your quote cut out the most important part of that section, being “within the legislative authority of (federal) Parliament”. Canada has a decentralized system of government like the US. In this case, the federal legislator regulates federal issues, while most other things are left to the lawmakers in each of the Provinces (the Canadian equivalent of States). As I already explained and provided sources for earlier, C-16 applies exclusively to federally regulated services and undertakings such as banks, railroads and the postal service.  Under the Canadian Constitution, education is explicitly reserved for the Provinces alone, meaning that this federal law simply doesn’t even apply to Peterson’s situation or any of the examples you gave.

Two, the paragraph you quoted doesn’t really have any legal impact. It’s an explanatory section that sets out the purpose of the law and what it’s working towards in general. It’s not actually a significant legal basis that you can rely on in court for any real word situations. Most laws don’t even have a section like this because it’s kind of redundant, so they instead put this in the non-binding recitals or explanatory memorandum. This is comparable to having a “purpose” section in the criminal code stating “that all individuals should be free from crime and that wrongdoers should be held accountable”. It’s nice and all, but you can’t actually go to court and present a case saying “well the law says I should be free from crime and that this guy should be punished so compensate me and throw him in jail”. You need to base your arguments on the actual provisions of the code that detail what constitutes as a crime and what the appropriate punishment can be. This might be difficult to understand without a legal background, but the section you’re referring to is nothing more than a kind of introduction that spells out why they adopted this law, what it should apply to and what they hope to achieve with it. If you look at the full Canadian Human Rights Act, you’ll see that this section comes even before “Part I” of the act – which is where the “actual” law starts.

In other words, no one can go to the Tribunal based on the claim that their “opportunity equal with others to make the lives they wish to have and to have their needs accommodated” has been violated or denied. They need to show that the other person or business is guilty of one of the “discriminatory practices” that the act lists in section 5. Only actions that fall under one of these practices (which are actually described in a pretty detailed way) can be considered illegal – not any random thing that makes someone feel bad like the use of pronouns. Yes, in the end it remains up to the court to decide, but it cannot simply invent a new type of discrimination when this is not provided for in the law. The misuse of pronouns doesn't fall under any of the practices that count as discrimniation.

As for the scope of the definitions, I think they’re more closely defined than you would think. Concerning discrimination, the Human Rights Act really does explain what practices are considered discriminatory. For example, regarding employment, section 7 states that it’s illegal to “refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual” (meaning not to hire or to fire someone) or to “differentiate adversely in relation to an employee” (meaning to treat someone differently from the rest in such a way that it negatively or harmfully affects them) when this is done for reasons of “a prohibited ground of discrimination” (being race, sexual orientation, sex and so on – as clearly delineated in the law). In my eyes, that’s pretty clear and much like what you’re asking for. If you refuse to hire someone because she’s a woman or you make your black employees scrub toilets and use the back entrance because of the color of their skin, then what you’re doing is discrimination. As for the very example you gave, the law does literally say that it’s considered discrimination “to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual” when based on a prohibited ground. As I explained before, C-16 is no longer referred to as a law on its own because all it does is add the words “gender and gender expression” to an existing law. If all you do is read the text of C-16, you’re only peeking through the keyhole and will miss the parts that actually matter.

Does that make sense?


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,324 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I'll have to go through all of this in detail when I'm not so mentally fatigued. Even reading over the last post and responding took way more effort than I honestly have the energy to muster, dealing with my deteriorated health right now. I tried to skim through for the time being, to at least get a decent understanding and I think I see what you're trying to explain, at least I hope I do.

I would like to say that I never did think that this new legislation would be used to take anyone to court for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns, at least not so long as the courts consist of reasonable people. The issue I was having was whether or not the possibility of such a thing was actually instantiated in the law. If the law could be interpreted that way somehow, to present an opportunity for ideologues to actually try to use it against someone at any point in the future. Basically, my concern was, not so much that is it a possibility now, but could it become a possibility in the future as society changes overtime and is the law structured in such a way that would prevent it from becoming a possibility.