Has the Left Flip Flopped on Free Speech?

I think the left's biggest problem in that regard is its susceptibility to stuff like being gluten-free and taking colon cleanses.

Colon cleanse?

Count me out.

drummerboy said:
I think the left's biggest problem in that regard is its susceptibility to stuff like being gluten-free and taking colon cleanses.

 The liberal love of new age and feel-good hippie remedies is pretty close to analogous. 

ridski said:

drummerboy said:
I think the left's biggest problem in that regard is its susceptibility to stuff like being gluten-free and taking colon cleanses.

 The liberal love of new age and feel-good hippie remedies is pretty close to analogous. 

 yup - it's all included, with an un-healthy dose of anti-vax.

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

drummerboy said:
I think the left's biggest problem in that regard is its susceptibility to stuff like being gluten-free and taking colon cleanses.

 The liberal love of new age and feel-good hippie remedies is pretty close to analogous. 

 yup - it's all included, with an un-healthy dose of anti-vax.

 I don't think that stuff is all that common.  And the anti-vax stuff isn't strictly liberals.  Libertarians are all over that ****.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

drummerboy said:
I think the left's biggest problem in that regard is its susceptibility to stuff like being gluten-free and taking colon cleanses.

 The liberal love of new age and feel-good hippie remedies is pretty close to analogous. 

 yup - it's all included, with an un-healthy dose of anti-vax.

 I don't think that stuff is all that common.  And the anti-vax stuff isn't strictly liberals.  Libertarians are all over that ****.

yes, it's not as widespread - just offered it as one of the places where some libs take leave of their reason. And it's not even close to the all encompassing cloud of unreality that the right wallows in.

tom said:
Is there anything on the left comparable to the endless array of scams (like this guy, but also TV preacher fundraisers, gold, political direct mail) that the right engaged in?

 I think the money one is that anyone who thinks differently is evil, racist, white supremacist or "Cray Cray" as it were.   

That was clearly a hit piece in the NY Times.  I'm guessing Drummerboy doesn't know the first thing about Jordan Peterson.  And thus, he doesn't understand that Peterson is a big believer in Jungian archetypes.  The author of the article relies on the reader's ignorance of Peterson.  Yeah, because he believes in witches. 

This is at least the 2nd hit piece in the NY Times. The first was in the Book Review.  Oddly, although Peterson's book has been near the top of every best seller list it has oddly not appeared on the NY Times best seller list. 

And you're not trying hard enough.  You could have gone with this now thoroughly debunked hit piece.

Peterson has been an academic and a Clinical Psychologist for about 25 years.  He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person.  He contended that this created a situation where one must use compelled speech.

Now, you can agree with him or not.   I find that it's most fruitful if you discuss the ideas.  The trick we see is that if someone's character is attacked in such a way, then any idea they may have is worthless.  Here's the thing though.  Drummerboy, etc don't know the first thing about this guy.  It's just like the Austrian school of economics.  Drummerboy doesn't know the first thing about it.  Why would he?  After all he they're "cray cray". 

terp said:

Oddly, although Peterson's book has been near the top of every best seller list it has oddly not appeared on the NY Times best seller list. 

Jordan Peterson’s book is a bestseller — except where it matters most (Toronto Star)

We received an email from Books Editor Pamela Paul, who wrote: “Per the Bestsellers team, we do not include books published in Canada only. Hope that helps!”

That wasn’t an answer we expected.

The book was in fact sold in the U.S. — according to Publishers Weekly it moved almost 90,000 copies there in two weeks. It was also printed south of the border. 

But the publisher is listed as Penguin Random House Canada — rather than its U.S.-based parent company or one of its stateside subsidiaries.

Could that be enough to disqualify Peterson from bragging rights?

terp said:

tom said:
Is there anything on the left comparable to the endless array of scams (like this guy, but also TV preacher fundraisers, gold, political direct mail) that the right engaged in?

 I think the money one is that anyone who thinks differently is evil, racist, white supremacist or "Cray Cray" as it were.   
That was clearly a hit piece in the NY Times.  I'm guessing Drummerboy doesn't know the first thing about Jordan Peterson.  And thus, he doesn't understand that Peterson is a big believer in Jungian archetypes.  The author of the article relies on the reader's ignorance of Peterson.  Yeah, because he believes in witches. 
This is at least the 2nd hit piece in the NY Times. The first was in the Book Review.  Oddly, although Peterson's book has been near the top of every best seller list it has oddly not appeared on the NY Times best seller list. 
And you're not trying hard enough.  You could have gone with this now thoroughly debunked hit piece.
Peterson has been an academic and a Clinical Psychologist for about 25 years.  He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person.  He contended that this created a situation where one must use compelled speech.
Now, you can agree with him or not.   I find that it's most fruitful if you discuss the ideas.  The trick we see is that if someone's character is attacked in such a way, then any idea they may have is worthless.  Here's the thing though.  Drummerboy, etc don't know the first thing about this guy.  It's just like the Austrian school of economics.  Drummerboy doesn't know the first thing about it.  Why would he?  After all he they're "cray cray". 

 If this is the first thing to know about the guy, I'm not sure I want to know the second thing:  

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

What's up with this guy, Terp?  

terp said:

He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person. 

For readers interested in a different explanation of what that law requires: a letter from the Canadian Bar Association. 

terp,

you clearly have a problem seeing when someone is FOS.

here's a heads up, the following person is not FOS. It's by a woman who Bari Weiss tried to include in her IDW piece.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399

drummerboy said:
terp,
you clearly have a problem seeing when someone is FOS.
here's a heads up, the following person is not FOS. It's by a woman who Bari Weiss tried to include in her IDW piece.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399

 That article doesn't explain anything.  It's some woman's opinion which she is entitled to.

I know when you're FOS.  You don't know anything about it.  There is a hit piece in the Times and you assume he's the enemy and you think what they want you to think.  That's all this is.  Nothing more.

terp said:

tom said:
Is there anything on the left comparable to the endless array of scams (like this guy, but also TV preacher fundraisers, gold, political direct mail) that the right engaged in?

 I think the money one is that anyone who thinks differently is evil, racist, white supremacist or "Cray Cray" as it were.   
...

 It's very convenient for you to dismiss any substantive arguments by simply labeling them this way. Also pretty lazy, and ultimately disappointing. You know very well that the regular lefty posters go into great detail about why they disagree with people, and their criticisms are a far cry from mere naysaying.

Tell us what you think Peterson's major contribution has been so far. (Dave has already shown that his opposition to that Canadian law is pretty suspect, so you should pick something else.)

Or maybe you can explain what he was talking about when he was talking about witches.

And please - being on a best-seller list means less than nothing in terms of the validity of the author's beliefs. It's embarrassing to see you even use that in an attempt to legitimate him.

So, you admit that you know absolutely nothing about him then.  I have to say that I am not sure why the burden of proof is to legitimize someone as you tear him down based on out of context quotes and charicature like descriptions of his demeanor.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person. 

For readers interested in a different explanation of what that law requires: a letter from the Canadian Bar Association. 

 Professor Peterson fabricated an outrage for his self-promotion.  Classic technique.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person. 

For readers interested in a different explanation of what that law requires: a letter from the Canadian Bar Association. 

 Professor Peterson fabricated an outrage for his self-promotion.  Classic technique.

 nohero, are you alleging that DJP's opposition of Canadian bill C16 was an attempt to manufacture outrage.  Rather than principled opposition to compelled speech.   If so, please provide support for your POV.  

PS Clearly, Canada's protection of speech is different when compared with US free speech (Canadian sppech rights are set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) .  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada#Canadian_libel_and_defamation_lawHowever, most believe that compelled speech is prohibited by the Charter.  Section 2(b) of the Charter provides as follows:  

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person. 

For readers interested in a different explanation of what that law requires: a letter from the Canadian Bar Association. 

 Professor Peterson fabricated an outrage for his self-promotion.  Classic technique.

 nohero, are you alleging that DJP's opposition of Canadian bill C16 was an attempt to manufacture outrage.  Rather than principled opposition to compelled speech.   If so, please provide support for your POV.  


PS Clearly, Canada's protection of speech is different when compared with US free speech (Canadian sppech rights are set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) .  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada#Canadian_libel_and_defamation_lawHowever, most believe that compelled speech is prohibited by the Charter.  Section 2(b) of the Charter provides as follows:  
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Professor Peterson's complaint is of a type addressed in the linked letter from the Canadian Bar Association.  He's "opposing" a non-existent "threat" to free speech.

He's become more well known since his outrage became newsworthy.

To supplement my prior response - in a March 2018 interview of Professor Peterson, the reporter noted as follows: "Two years ago, almost nobody had heard of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson. Now his new book 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos is one of the bestselling books on Amazon, his YouTube lectures have garnered millions of views, and he has become one of the most loathed and loved academics on the Internet. He spoke with TIME about his rise, his supporters and the news."  The reporter then asked Professor Peterson, "How did it all start?"  This is his own description:

"I put three videos [on YouTube]. One objecting to new legislation in Canada that required a form of compelled speech under the guise of compassion for the downtrodden that I thought was a terrible, terrible mistake. Another objecting to the University of Toronto’s requirement that its Human Resources staff undergo unconscious bias training, which I regard as scientifically suspect. And another detailing out the structure of what I regarded as the politically correct game. Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble."

His twelve rules are innocuous if not saccharine.   They could be written on a poster of the sun setting over a beach.  They are not the source of his controversy.  You wouldn't infer a belief in forced monogamy form any of the rules.

nohero said:

RealityForAll said:

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

He gained notoriety about a year and half ago when he criticized bill C-16 in Canada because it would require someone to use specific pronouns when referring to a transgender person. 

For readers interested in a different explanation of what that law requires: a letter from the Canadian Bar Association. 

 Professor Peterson fabricated an outrage for his self-promotion.  Classic technique.

 nohero, are you alleging that DJP's opposition of Canadian bill C16 was an attempt to manufacture outrage.  Rather than principled opposition to compelled speech.   If so, please provide support for your POV.  


PS Clearly, Canada's protection of speech is different when compared with US free speech (Canadian sppech rights are set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) .  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada#Canadian_libel_and_defamation_lawHowever, most believe that compelled speech is prohibited by the Charter.  Section 2(b) of the Charter provides as follows:  
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Professor Peterson's complaint is of a type addressed in the linked letter from the Canadian Bar Association.  He's "opposing" a non-existent "threat" to free speech.
He's become more well known since his outrage became newsworthy.

Are you aware of the Wilfrid Laurier University ("WLU") incident with teaching assistant ("TA") Lindsay Shepherd.  Where Shepherd was accused of violating C16 for replaying a DJP clip originating from a public television program.  Clearly, the effect of C16 is contrary to the assertions made in the CBA letter (especially page 3 entitled as paragraphs:  i.) "Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression"; and ii.) Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression).

Link to WLU hearing with Lindsay Shepherd:  

Partial transcript of WLU incident with Lindsay Shepherd with comments from Heterodox Acadaemy.  See https://heterodoxacademy.org/lindsay-shepherd-and-the-potential-for-heterodoxy-at-wilfrid-laurier-university/  Heterdox Academy made comments to the meeting transcript and are marked as "HA". Nathan Rambukanna was/is Lindsay Shepherd's advisor for whom she is a teaching assistant.

HA:  In the meeting, Shepherd asserted that she was neutrally presenting a topic (the legally mandated use of new gender pronouns) that is in the current public discourse.

Shepherd: [C]an you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this? Like, is that what the point of this is? Because to me, that is so against what a university is about. So against it. I was not taking sides. I was presenting both arguments.

HA:  But her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, didn’t want her to remain neutral.

Shepherd: Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

Rambukkana: Okay, “in the spirit of the debate” is slightly different than “this is a problematic idea that we might want to unpack.”

Shepherd: But that’s taking sides.

Rambukkana: Yes.

HA:  One side of this debate has seemingly become academic orthodoxy, which precludes the possibility that students might question it and think critically about it. In the words of Orwell from 1984:

Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Shepherd’s supervisors did not disclose any information about the complaint.

Shepherd: I have no concept of how many people complained, what their complaint was, you haven’t shown me the complaint.

Rambukkana: I understand that this is upsetting, but also confidentiality matters.

Shepherd: The number of people is confidential?

Rambukkana: Yes.

HA:  Even the policy violation was unclear.

Rambukkana: Do you understand how what happened was contrary to, sorry Adria, what was the policy?

Joel: Gendered and Sexual Violence.

Rambukkana: — Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. Do you understand how —

Shepherd: Sorry, what did I violate in that policy.

Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.

Shepherd: So I caused harm?

Joel: — which is, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a protected thing so something that Laurier holds as a value.

Shepherd: Ok, so by proxy me showing a YouTube video I’m transphobic and I caused harm and violence? So be it. I can’t do anything to control that.

HA:  These amorphous accusations are reminiscent of Kafka’s opening lines from The Trial:

Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.

At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.

Throughout the conversation, Shepherd continued to articulate the value of showing students conflicting ideas.

Shepherd: But when they leave the university they’re going to be exposed to these ideas, so I don’t see how I’m doing a disservice to the class by exposing them to ideas that are really out there.

The ideas are “really out there:” the clip Shepherd showed had recently aired on TV. But Rambukkana later explained that there are some perspectives for which a stance must be taken by the teacher. For example:

Rambukkana: This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.

HA:  Asserting that everyone you disagree with is Hitler is a typical application of concept creep. While it is easy to argue that Hitler’s views should not be portrayed neutrally in the classroom, can the same thing be said of Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University Toronto whose ire is directed not at trans people but at a Canadian law mandating pronoun use? Is opposing a recent law regulating language use really comparable to carrying out genocide?

(Even the question of how Hitler should be portrayed in the classroom might be worth some open debate. When I was in high school, our history class had a unit on the Holocaust in which we were shown Nazi propaganda films and asked to discuss what made them so effective. This was at a Jewish high school, in which many students’ grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust. I’d argue we benefited tremendously from that class.)

Such shielding ultimately harms the students; arguably, the greatest disservice is done to the trans students themselves, for they would most benefit from being able to discuss the merits of the bill and debate the topic with those who disagree with them.

The supervisors settled on the requirement that Shepherd submit for advance review any videos she wants to show her students. They left open the possibility that more consequences may follow, because:

Rambukkana: Frankly some of the things that we talked about are a little problematic.

HA:  The committee didn’t seem content to let Shepherd maintain her stance. Throughout the conversation you can feel their drive to convert her; they cannot accept that someone would want to maintain a view of intellectual freedom that they consider “problematic.”  As in 1984:

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”

“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

Let us take the views espoused in this meeting and carry them to their logical end: Students at Laurier will graduate without ever having even heard ideas that run contrary to their own. When they do encounter people in the post-college world who hold those ideas, they will attribute bad intentions; they’ll assume that such people must either be insane, or as evil as Hitler. And thus when they, in turn, become supervising professors, they will make sure their TAs do not inflict any such views on their students, to shield them from insanity and evil. And so on. Until, perhaps, one defiant TA challenges them…

As mentioned earlier, this incident has taken a positive turn. Because of overwhelming negative media attention, the university president, Deborah MacLatchy, issued an apology to Shepherd on behalf of the university. It was minimal and pro forma; it reads like the apology of someone calculating political costs. It pivots away from the university’s bad treatment of Shepherd to condemn people on social media who targeted those involved “with extreme vitriol.” It ends by proposing a task force to look into a broad array of issues, including diversity and inclusion.

But Shepherd’s supervising professor did much better. Rambukkana went beyond the minimum necessary (apologizing for his mistreatment of Shepherd). Rather, he gave her the honor of actually listening to her arguments. He questioned whether it is appropriate for him to teach from a partisan social justice perspective, or whether it might be better for professors to be less heavy-handed and more open to “diversity of thought:”

Finally there is the question of teaching from a social justice perspective, which my course does attempt to do. I write elsewhere about reaching across the aisle to former alt-right figures as possible unexpected allies in the struggle to create a better more just society for all. But hearing all of the feedback from people and looking at the polarized response I am beginning to rethink so limited an approach. Maybe we ought to strive to reach across all of our multiple divisions to find points where we can discuss such issues, air multiple perspectives, and embrace the diversity of thought. And maybe I have to get out of an “us versus them” habit of thought to do this myself, and to think of the goal as more than simply advancing social justice, but social betterment and progress as a whole.

This willingness to question whether professors should teach from a particular political perspective is rare and commendable. Rambukkana recognizes that partisan teaching reinforces an “us versus them” mindset that is antithetical both to the pursuit of truth and to the pursuit of good public policy. Bravo to Professor Rambukkana.

RealityForAll said:

Are you aware of the Wilfrid Laurier University ("WLU") incident with teaching assistant ("TA") Lindsay Shepherd.  Where Shepherd was accused of violating C16 for replaying a DJP clip originating from a public television program.  Clearly, the effect of C16 is contrary to the assertions made in the CBA letter (especially page 3 entitled as paragraphs:  i.) "Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression"; and ii.) Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression).

I’m aware of the incident. Are you aware of the epilogue, which has included apologies from the supervisor and the university president?

Seeing only the tail end of this conversation, but just looking at this topic of no platform movement.  Academia is a place where conversation, critical discourse has been lost. 

Julie BIndel -https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/feminist-julie-bindel-banned-manchester-student-union-talk-free-speech-1522670

When Linda Bellos was invited to speak at Cambridge University in 2017, she told the organizers that she would be "publicly questioning some of the trans politics...which seems to assert the power of those who were previously designated male to tell lesbians, and especially lesbian feminists, what to say and think." She was subsequently disinvited from speaking. Asked by The Times for comment, Bellos reiterated: "I’m not being told by someone who a few months ago was a man what I as a woman can or cannot do." Claire Heuchan, writing for The Guardian, lamented the university's decision to disinvite Bellos, opining: "When feminists who have spent decades challenging sexism, racism, and homophobia are viewed as a risk to the wellbeing of students, something has gone very wrong indeed."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/06/feminist-linda-bellos-women-trans-male-violence

I want to add this attack on Rebecca Tuvel -  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

Certain topics will get you in big trouble in academia - denying the liberal choice model, examining the erasure of violations against women for fear of being seen as a colonist or imperialist. 

Tread lightly.... be aware of safe spaces. 

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Are you aware of the Wilfrid Laurier University ("WLU") incident with teaching assistant ("TA") Lindsay Shepherd.  Where Shepherd was accused of violating C16 for replaying a DJP clip originating from a public television program.  Clearly, the effect of C16 is contrary to the assertions made in the CBA letter (especially page 3 entitled as paragraphs:  i.) "Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression"; and ii.) Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression).

I’m aware of the incident. Are you aware of the epilogue, which has included apologies from the supervisor and the university president?

 Are you aware that Lindsay Shepherd's advisor, Nathan Rambukanna, LIED that there were complaints from WLU students about Ms. Shepherd's presentation.  Professor Rambukanna failed to apologize for the fact that he LIED about complaints from WLU students.  This LIE was spuriously described as the reason for Lindsay's interrogation.  

What is an apology worth when the apologist (Professor Rambukanna) does not apologize for his most egregious behavior (namely, LYING about the fact that there were student complaints about Lindsay's TA work when no complaints or concerns actually existed)?

Excerpt from WLU president statement:  "There were numerous errors in judgement made in the handling of the meeting with Ms. Lindsay Shepherd, the TA of the tutorial in question. In fact, the meeting never should have happened at all. No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video. This was confirmed in the fact-finding report."  See https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2017/dec/president-statement-re-independent-fact-finder-report.html

WLU president's statement clearly shows that Professor Rambukanna LIED about the basis for creating this Orwellian hearing for Lindsay.  Yet, the university president has not terminated or reprimanded Professor Rambukanna.  This fact casts a long shadow over the WLU president's apology.

RealityForAll said:

Are you aware that Lindsay Shepherd's advisor, Nathan Rambukanna, LIED that there were complaints from WLU students about Ms. Shepherd's presentation.  Professor Rambukanna failed to apologize for the fact that he LIED about complaints from WLU students.  This LIE was spuriously described as the reason for Lindsay's interrogation.

If that was the case, it’s a reflection on Rambukanna and not on the content, merits or effects of C16.

h4daniel said:
I want to add this attack on Rebecca Tuvel -  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
Certain topics will get you in big trouble in academia - denying the liberal choice model, examining the erasure of violations against women for fear of being seen as a colonist or imperialist. 
Tread lightly.... be aware of safe spaces. 

 Thanks for the link.  Very interesting reading.

Can we please have a separate Category for "Canada Specific"?

I have absolutely no idea why this discussion is here.

LOST said:
Can we please have a separate Category for "Canada Specific"?
I have absolutely no idea why this discussion is here.

 Jordan Peterson's rise to fame has caused us to examine issues related to DJP including: i.) Bill C16;

ii.) WLU incident with Lindsay Shepherd;  iii.) CBA letter regarding C16; and iv.) Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The issues surrounding DJP being discussed here are relevant to what is happening here in the US especially on college campuses.  I think bifurcating these issues by geography will hamper the discussion.  IMHO, so long as we focus on campus free speech issues, and compelled speech issues (whether in the US or Canada), I think the discussion can be productive.  NO vote for separate CANADA discussion.

PS Because CANADA does not have as strong speech protections as the US, CANADA acts as a canary in a coal mine with respect to improper limits on speech that we may confront here in the US in the future.

I will respond to some of the attacks on Jordan Peterson's character below.  This by no means should be taken as an indication that I feel it necessary.   I find it truly frightening the level of knowledge(or lack thereof) that people find necessary to tear down another person's character.  

nohero said:
To supplement my prior response - in a March 2018 interview of Professor Peterson, the reporter noted as follows: "Two years ago, almost nobody had heard of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson. Now his new book 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos is one of the bestselling books on Amazon, his YouTube lectures have garnered millions of views, and he has become one of the most loathed and loved academics on the Internet. He spoke with TIME about his rise, his supporters and the news."  The reporter then asked Professor Peterson, "How did it all start?"  This is his own description:
"I put three videos [on YouTube]. One objecting to new legislation in Canada that required a form of compelled speech under the guise of compassion for the downtrodden that I thought was a terrible, terrible mistake. Another objecting to the University of Toronto’s requirement that its Human Resources staff undergo unconscious bias training, which I regard as scientifically suspect. And another detailing out the structure of what I regarded as the politically correct game. Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble."

What he did in challenging these policies put his job in serious jeopardy.   He had some real skin in the game on this.  Make no mistake about that.  

Regarding Bill C 16:  I'm no expert on Canadian law.  However, I do believe they have a Human Rights Tribunal.  If they direct you to make changes to behavior and you fail to comply you may be brought in contempt.   I believe this has been done and usually to cretins. 

But, as we will see, the measuring stick is not necessarily static.  Let's take the Rebecca Tuvel article that h4daniel was nice enough to share. Specifically, let's look at part of the compliant letter that had the peer reviewed article pulled down:

(1) Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” 

They are accusing this person of "enacting violence"  by writing an academic article. That seems like one slippery slope right there.

bub said:

 If this is the first thing to know about the guy, I'm not sure I want to know the second thing:  
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
What's up with this guy, Terp?  

 I'm just some dumb guy, so I may mess this up.  But I'll take a crack at this.  Much of Peterson's early research work was inspired by the cold war.  He was interested in how we man could risk total annihilation based on what he saw were philosophical differences.  He then explored how humans could inflict such evil on other humans(Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge, etc).   Being a Psychologist he was interested in the thought processes of people. 

More recently, he has focused on school shootings.  His thinking is that people who perpetuate violence of this kind go to such a dark place due to alienation, lack of success, rejection, etc that they not only don't want to exist but resent existence itself.  Thus, they lash out at the most innocent of victims.  

Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means.  I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy.  It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it  himself here.