'Hundreds' of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex

[buka001]

What is with you and your fetish for Jordan Peterson? How is it relevant to the thread?

Someone brought up the false propaganda about Canadas C-16 bill that JBP falsely promoted.

I posted a legal analysis that rebutted it.

Nobody looked at that.

They targeted my snipe at his character.

 

[The Voice]

No, I said -



Present tense, I am sure you can see that.

You decided to impeach my view by saying I insulated he was on drugs back then.

Then why even mention the fact that he is NOW in rehab if the events are completely unrelated?

 

[buka001]

Then why even mention the fact that he is NOW in rehab if the events are completely unrelated?

I think it is relevant to examine some hypocrisy he has in his world view and actions.

 

[Moosedrool]

All I have gotten from you cultists is, how dare you speak out against our Lord and Saviour.

I have only touched the surface of his character, yet you have been deeply offended by, what is by your own admission, at face value a fact. He is addicted to drugs.

Lol "lord and saviour" XD "offended" I have many disagreements with Jordan especially his stuff on religion. Now because I pointed out your stupid attempt at vitriol you kick off another wave of transparent garbage that I'm somehow worshipping this guy.

You can't make his stuff up.

 

[buka001]

Lol "lord and saviour" XD "offended" I have many disagreements with Jordan especially his stuff on religion. Now because I pointed out your stupid attempt at vitriol you kick off another wave of transparent garbage that I'm somehow worshipping this guy.

You can't make his stuff up.

If you say so.

 

[Tokolotshe]

I don't.

Lol unless Beethoven, Bach, Handel and Pachelbel are crap by your standard.

But - using your own standards:
somebody who died of an overdose of meds with lead, oops,
a jailbird,
somebody who ended up blind for using an occultist,
somebody who is a coward
- are crap!

Of course they weren't. I did exactly what you did. The reality is a bit different. Please just don't play these intellectually dishonest games. If you believe something, say it. If you don't, also say it. But don't take cheap shots dragging other agendas in.

As for the chirp I made in the sarcastic fonts #213 ... that ties in with both your example and the topic here.

 

[Pegasus]

Someone brought up the false propaganda about Canadas C-16 bill that JBP falsely promoted.

I posted a legal analysis that rebutted it.

Nobody looked at that.

They targeted my snipe at his character.

What was the false propaganda?

 

[Brenden_E]

If you say so.

He did say so. You lookin a fool trying to push an agenda.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Someone brought up the false propaganda about Canadas C-16 bill that JBP falsely promoted.

I posted a legal analysis that rebutted it.

Nobody looked at that.

They targeted my snipe at his character.

Eeeeediot.

From your source:

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

The analysis you post omits the fact that the policy documents on the OHRC were amended after Jordan Peterson started complaining, softening the language such that it removed many of the Orwellian implications.

It's no different than the crazy woke crap our HRC has started pulling of late; creating enabling legislation to allow administrative bodies to unilaterally determine the legal implications of certain kinds of behaviour is A Bad Idea™.

So JBP did not in fact falsely promote anything, and your rebuttal actually validates the very concerns you attempted to dismiss.

But be honest, you weren't really looking to talk about Bill C-16, you just came here to troll.

 

[Tokolotshe]

But be honest, ...

... ay, there's the rub

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 - William Shakespeare,

 

[buka001]

What was the false propaganda?

Read the link I posted

 

[We Love Bass]

CTRL ALT DEL

 

[buka001]

Eeeeediot.

From your source:

The analysis you post omits the fact that the policy documents on the OHRC were amended after Jordan Peterson started complaining, softening the language such that it removed many of the Orwellian implications.

It's no different than the crazy woke crap our HRC has started pulling of late; creating enabling legislation to allow administrative bodies to unilaterally determine the legal implications of certain kinds of behaviour is A Bad Idea.

So JBP did not in fact falsely promote anything, and your rebuttal actually validates the very concerns you attempted to dismiss.

But be honest, you weren't really looking to talk about Bill C-16, you just came here to troll.

Fact, from you? I doubt that.

 

[Pegasus]

Read the link I posted

I did.
And I'm pretty sure you posted it without reading it.

 

[buka001]

I did.
And I'm pretty sure you posted it without reading it.

Good and you will see that the claim that people would be jailed does not hold true. Which debunks what The Voice was claiming

 

[Pegasus]

Good and you will see that the claim that people would be jailed does not hold true. Which debunks what The Voice was claiming

“If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code.

If Peterson was found to be in violation of the code, there are different possible remedies. He could be ordered to pay money, he could be ordered to correct the behaviour, he could be ordered to go to training, etc.

What happens if you refuse to pay the fine, correct the behavior or undergo "training"?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Fact, from you? I doubt that.

So indeed you don't actually bother to engage on the substance of the issue, and were simply here to troll by attacking Jordan Peterson's character, thereby derailing the discussion in the thread.

I can't be bothered to go find the video clips of where Jordan Peterson talks about the edits to policy documents, but everything else I said can be confirmed here:

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m_features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”

“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Where are pronouns mentioned?

Since the changes brought forth by Bill C-16 do not mention pronouns, both Cossman and Brown cite a 2014 policy released by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) for guidance.

Page 18 reads: “Gender-based harassment can involve: (5) Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun.”

The policy itself is not legally binding, Cossman says, but a human rights tribunal “does tend to follow the policy that’s articulated.”

The OHRC is a provincial body, however — whereas Bill C-16 is federal — but Brown says the Department of Justice has said the federal guidelines will mirror the OHRC policy.

 

[buka001]

So indeed you don't actually bother to engage on the substance of the issue, and were simply here to troll by attacking Jordan Peterson's character, thereby derailing the discussion in the thread.

I can't be bothered to go find the video clips of where Jordan Peterson talks about the edits to policy documents, but everything else I said can be confirmed here:

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m_features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

So Bill C-16 did not mandate it? Your source confirms this.

Hence the hysterics on C-16 mandating it were incorrect?

 

[Tokolotshe]

So Bill C-16 did not mandate it? Your source confirms this.

Hence the hysterics on C-16 mandating it were incorrect?

"Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

So Bill C-16 did not mandate it? Your source confirms this.

Hence the hysterics on C-16 mandating it were incorrect?

None so blind as those who do not wish to see...