Canada criminalizes the wrong use of gender pronouns
The attack on reality is now unabated.
Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law.
“Compelled speech has come to Canada,” stated Peterson. “We will seriously regret this.”
Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, and one of the bill’s fiercest critics, spoke to the Senate before the vote, insisting that it infringed upon citizens’ freedom of speech and institutes what he views as dubious gender ideology into law.
“Compelled speech has come to Canada,” stated Peterson. “We will seriously regret this.”
Might be tough at first but it can be done even when writing a story.
The entity in question, raped another entity and then fled the scene...official law entities followed to no avail.
The victim claimed that even though it did not give permission, it felt kinda good.
What they have to realize though, is that their behavior in not human like, therefore we can't consider them human so "It" or Entity is generously appropriate.
Or Dudlie Do Right or Diddle Not Right or even a Stanley Ann Dunham ask what kind of human or even be allowed to get a discription of an assailant. What if all the victim could say was Stanley Ann Dunham did it? Who perhaps would they find?
..other than that, it'll be: a long haired blond, hairy faced entity with hairy legs, a big bulge in it's skirt, no shirt and 3 big blue boobs!
Also smoking a big fat cigar at the time...Oh yea, I forgot... tiny tiny feets.
Sincerely, Diddle Not Right...or wrong, it's relative...
You should be able to picture that.
Notice: not responsible for any nightmares you might have about the above described entity.
All joking aside...I would not give them the satisfaction of using the pronouns of their choice. I would not refer to them a human, people, them or they..."It" will do just fine.
Good night my friend.
Then hopefully you can rejuvenate .:)
That dirty word Will hurt you...I say, we should not talk to them at all, just nod and stop doing business with them.
A couple of days later we crossed the border and drove through the initial surprise of harebrained traffic from Mexicalli to Tijuana, recrossed the border into San Diego and saw the Pacific Ocean for the first time in our lives. That was then.
Now me dino would not to go no where near our southern border under any circumstances. Why? Lead poisoning or being kidnapped can ruin my day.
My family took me as a kid into Canada just to sight-see that side of Niagara Falls. That was the only time I've been anywhere really close to Canada.
Would me dino go anywhere close to the Canadian border? Up until today, I wouldn't have minded seeing some of Canada. I'd like to see a prominent statue of some somewhat famous dude named Hebron that I'm a descendant of on my mama's side.
As of today, I'd only like to step right up to the border where there's a lot of people on the other side and start screaming pronouns.
Eureka! New thought~I would also hold a huge sign with all the forbidden speech pronouns written red upon white upon it..
Maybe I'll also dress up to be myself~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHHC9...
Thoughtcrime. Double plus ungood.
Too late! I've already excepted the image of reality conscious human beings can reflect if one wishes existence to continue to exist without adverse consequences.
It's not mystical nor a social construct, it's quantumly physical. We should open up a worm hole so they can exit our dimension to one that suits their retarded mental constructs. They reportedly have 10 others to choose from.
It's an old joke but still gets a laugh.
Trudeau is a nut off the old fruit tree.
“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada's prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate.
I remember when his fathers wife Margret ran off with Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones for a binge of some type.
Dommage, le mot «personne» est pénalement féminin.
Personal
First Person
Singular
I, me
Plural
us, we
Second Person
Singular
you
Plural
you
Third Person
Singular
he, her, him, it, she, they
Plural
them, they
Possessive
Singular
her, his, its, my, your (used before nouns)
hers, his, mine, yours (used alone)
Plural
our, their, your (used before nouns)
ours, theirs, yours (used alone)
Reflexive
First Person
Singular
myself
Plural
ourselves
Second Person
Singular
yourself
Plural
yourselves
Third Person
Singular
herself, himself, itself
Plural
themselves
Subject
Singular
he, I, it, she, you
Plural
they, you, we
Object
Singular
her, him, it, me, you
Plural
them, us, you
Demonstrative
Singular
this, that
Plural
these, those
Indefinite
Singular
anybody, anyone, anything, each, either, everybody, everyone, everything, neither, nobody, no one, nothing, one, somebody, someone, something
Plural
both, few, many, several
S or P
all, any, most, none, some
Relative
that, which, whichever, who, whoever, whom, whomever, whose
Interrogative
what, which, who, whom, whose
I would call them as I see them like the Dino and OUC.
PC madness is social mad cow disease.
So much for Mankind... Snowflakes...
Regards,
O.A.
Processed People: https://youtu.be/G96Sztb8Ctk
The Canadian Bar rejected claims that the law would criminalize use of the wrong pronouns.
The issue is with having a list of protected groups in the first place and having crimes treated differently because their motive was "hate" or "terrorism".
Politicians get to claim credit for protecting yet another group. Bigots write crap articles like this one falsely claiming that protecting another group is the first step toward banning speech.
I can see this article as "an unabated attack on reality," but it's simpler to say the author is lying.
the story.
Bill C-16
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.