Jordan Peterson railed against a guideline that, from what I understand, had no consequences to him. He blew it up as if he was being persecuted but the actual law was just “hey please consider using people’s preferred pronouns”.
That isn't a good summary of the bill, and it didn't even mention preferred pronouns. What it actually did was add "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected characteristics to be considered when prosecuting hate speech and as a factor in criminal sentencing. (Peterson's interpretation was that it would have the effect of making misgendering or failure to use preferred pronouns into hate speech, thus that it was a law that amounted to compelled speech.)
Oh so it's even more silly and blown up than I thought. I'd go back to correct myself but unfortunately I can't since the post is too old. Thanks for correcting me!
Do remember though that Peterson's submissions against the bill (alongside Gad Saad if I remember right) was not really all that silly and blown up. It was the subsequent reaction where people said "this guy is a far right transphbic bigot" and blew it all out of proportion and made him famous. And then there was the whole Lindsay Shepherd/Wilkred Laurier affair.
What I am saying is you might think JP lit a stupid fire, but don't forget that a lot of people came along and poured a lot of oil it.
I find it a bit odd that people are mad at a guy for having concerns about a proposed law and raising them as part of the bill's scrutiny process. And don't forget that in the end, the lawmakers weren't persuaded by his arguments, and passed the law anyway.
Would people rather live in a world where laws are passed without scrutiny, everybody keeops quiet and nobody makes a fuss? I still think somewhere underneath all the nonsense a lot of valuable public discussions were had.
