12

Canada criminalizes the wrong use of gender pronouns

Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months ago to Culture
40 comments | Share | Flag

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.”
SOURCE URL: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    Either one talks to no one or at least avoids the use of any pronouns what so ever...

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Even your satire could be considered illegal now in Canada. Some of those "its" might be offended by your use of the "dehumanizing" term "it." I've read elsewhere that (depending on whether "it" was a "he" that became a "she" or the other way around, or whether "it" just "identifies" a certain way that day) some of their preferred terms are "zhe" or some other made-up term. The idiocy never ends, does it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        No, your correct, it never ends; they seemed to have created something infinite.
        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      That brings up a future consideration. Should a police........ or a Royal Mounted Dudley Do Right
      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?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 4 weeks ago
        Only the "strip searcher knows for sure"...
        ..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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    "Compelled speech." What a phrase! Think of those two words. What an elegant way of saying "talk my way or suffer the consequences." In one fell swoop, Canada has dealt freedom of speech a blow so harsh that the freedom of speech in The Great White North can be seen melting away. Now there's the Global Warming one should fear."Compelled Speech." That's what I call "dirty words."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    During 1973, a brother and I spent a night camping out several feet away from the Rio Grande. It was not something we were supposed to do at Big Bend National Park but we did it anyway.
    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...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lonerinfl 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    So what is the correct pronoun for a hermaphrodite? In the fact that pronouns are subjective to both appearance, social perception and desired intent of conversation(IE: do you intend to offend) this is like making it law that everyone must have exactly the same accent, or a particular eye color. The law is an over zealous attempt to define everyone by one set of perceptions, it is going to be either become a very big joke as to enforcement or quickly repealed due to a vulgarize problem that proves to have been just that a mistake in what is perceived on someone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    The heart of this law is some people denying reality who then want to force others to join them in that denial. It's a literally ridiculous law and I pity all Canadians for the loss of freedom this will bring about. I will wait and say "I told you so" when the whole thing collapses under the weight of reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 4 weeks ago
      This generation denies all reality and wants you to reflect their image or else!
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 4 weeks ago
      Yes Blair ,
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    Pronouns

    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
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    I hope I live long enough to see this this type of blind infringement on freedom go away. Or, I hope I die before most of our constitutional freedoms are taken away. In any case most of the change will not be realized until after I'm dead.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  rbroberg 2 months, 1 week ago
    So we refer to a person by their sex, gender, gender preference, or... Just curious because I would not want the Canadians to feel compelled to define a standard. Don't want to ask too much of them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by a59430802sojourner 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    You can't even use the word 'human' because it has 'man' in it! Therefore i presume the correct word would be 'huit'. I also wonder how they will treat visitors to their country?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 2 months, 4 weeks ago
    This forced speech gender pronoun issue is happening in the United States, too. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2... That story makes me particularly irate, since this is a school, and the courts found that the teacher had the right to force others to refer to a single entity with a plural pronoun. According to the US government, there is now a special class of people who possess the right to force teachers to use improper grammar in the places where children are supposed to be learning proper grammar. It's insanity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    I believe this article is false. From what I can find, the law adds gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Code. The prevents the gov't and businesses under gov't jurisdiction, like banks, from discriminating against based on gender identity. It also allows crimes motivated by gender identity to be considered hate crimes.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Once again you are using your feelings to disclaim
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo