Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Canada News

  1. #21
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default


    French Wannabe secular extremist Quebec bans niqab for public services with neutrality law



    A Canadian province has passed a controversial religious neutrality law that bars people from wearing face coverings when giving or receiving a public service.

    Quebec recently expanded the law to include services provided by municipal and public transit services.

    Women who wear a burqa or a niqab will now have to show their faces while receiving a government service.

    Quebec's National Assembly passed Bill 62 by a 66-51 vote.

    The provincial Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, tabled the bill two years ago.

    Bureaucrats, police officers, teachers, and bus drivers, as well as doctors, midwives, and dentists who work in publicly funded hospitals and health centres, will have to have their face uncovered.

    The law will also stop provincially subsidised childcare services from offering religious education.

    Quebec's Bill 62 does not specifically mention the Muslim faith.

    The government says the bill includes all types of face coverings and is not meant to target Muslims.

    But the new legislation would affect Muslim women who wear face veils when it comes to accessing government services, whether taking the bus or using the library, or getting healthcare and education.

    Critics say the law will marginalise Muslim women who cover their faces by limiting access to government work and services.

    Bill 62 does allow people to request exemptions. A woman who wears a face veil could ask for an "accommodation" to receive a government service while having her face covered.

    That request can be refused if "warranted in the context for security or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required", according to the bill.

    It is unclear how many women in Quebec wear religious face coverings, though an Environics survey from 2016 suggests about 3% of Canadian Muslim women wear the chador and 3% wear the niqab.

    Similar legislation has been proposed in Quebec twice before as part of the province's efforts to impose state secularism.

    Before losing the 2014 provincial election, the Parti Quebecois proposed a so-called Charter of Values bill.

    That would have banned all public servants from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols or clothing, including turbans and yarmulkes.

    It would also have mandated that a person's face be uncovered if they are to receive a government service.

    Legal experts have said they expect Bill 62 to be challenged in court.

    A number of European countries have passed legislation banning Islamic face veils, including France and Belgium in 2011.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41669614

  2. #22
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Quebec bans niqab for public services with neutrality law

    18 October 2017

    A Canadian province has passed a controversial religious neutrality law that bars people from wearing face coverings when giving or receiving a public service.

    Quebec recently expanded the law to include services provided by municipal and public transit services.

    Women who wear a burqa or a niqab will now have to show their faces while receiving a government service.

    Quebec's National Assembly passed Bill 62 by a 66-51 vote.

    The provincial Liberals, who have been in power since 2014, tabled the bill two years ago.

    Bureaucrats, police officers, teachers, and bus drivers, as well as doctors, midwives, and dentists who work in publicly funded hospitals and health centres, will have to have their face uncovered.

    The law will also stop provincially subsidised childcare services from offering religious education.

    Quebec's Bill 62 does not specifically mention the Muslim faith.

    The government says the bill includes all types of face coverings and is not meant to target Muslims.

    But the new legislation would affect Muslim women who wear face veils when it comes to accessing government services, whether taking the bus or using the library, or getting healthcare and education.

    Critics say the law will marginalise Muslim women who cover their faces by limiting access to government work and services.

    Bill 62 does allow people to request exemptions. A woman who wears a face veil could ask for an "accommodation" to receive a government service while having her face covered.

    That request can be refused
    if "warranted in the context for security or identification reasons or because of the level of communication required", according to the bill.

    It is unclear how many women in Quebec wear religious face coverings, though an Environics survey from 2016 suggests about 3% of Canadian Muslim women wear the chador and 3% wear the niqab.

    Similar legislation has been proposed in Quebec twice before as part of the province's efforts to impose state secularism.

    Before losing the 2014 provincial election, the Parti Quebecois proposed a so-called Charter of Values bill.

    That would have banned all public servants from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols or clothing, including turbans and yarmulkes.

    It would also have mandated that a person's face be uncovered if they are to receive a government service.

    Legal experts have said they expect Bill 62 to be challenged in court.

    A number of European countries have passed legislation banning Islamic face veils, including France and Belgium in 2011.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41669614

  3. #23
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    While Western allies criticize Trump's Jerusalem move, Canada remains muted

    Trudeau government continues pro-Israel policy of Harper government, but does so quietly

    Canada will not follow U.S. President Donald Trump's move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, nor will it be moving its embassy, says Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

    But Canada laid out its position in muted tones, and unlike the governments of Britain, France, Germany and other Western countries, did not make any public effort to change Trump's mind about an action that many in the Mideast see as a needless provocation.

    Prior to Trump's announcement, Global Affairs Canada put out a statement:

    "Canada is a steadfast ally and friend of Israel and friend to the Palestinian people. Canada's longstanding position is that the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. This has been the policy of consecutive governments, both Liberal and Conservative."

    The department stressed the statement was issued in the name of spokesman Adam Austen, rather than Freeland herself. But after Trump's announcement Wednesday, Freeland re-issued essentially the same quote in her own name.

    Austen explained Freeland's earlier silence this way: "The minister does not make statements about world events before they happen."

    No attempt to influence


    Of course, governments and foreign ministers often do make statements either calling for or warning against actions that have not yet been taken. After all, the window of opportunity to influence a decision closes once it is announced.

    Other foreign officials not only commented but contacted their U.S. counterparts before the decision was announced, in an attempt to get the Trump administration to reconsider. French President Emmanuel Macron called Trump, as did British Prime Minister Theresa May.

    "We believe it's unhelpful," May said after the announcement, adding that Trump has an obligation to "now bring forward detailed proposals for an Israel-Palestinian settlement."

    "We all know the far-reaching impact this move would have," said German Foreign MinisterSigmar Gabriel. "Everything which worsens the crisis is counterproductive."

    "We think it's an unwise step and a counterproductive step," said his Dutch counterpart, Halbe Zijlstra. "I don't think we can use another conflict in this very explosive region."

    Trudeau continues pro-Israel stance


    Canada's low-key reaction is in keeping with the Trudeau government's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian file, which has so far closely followed the Harper government's alignment with Israel, but has done so quietly, rather than trumpeting it in fundraising emails.

    At the United Nations, Canada under Trudeau continues to block resolutions condemning Israeli actions in the occupied territories — alongside the U.S., Israel and a small coterie of Pacific island nations that depend heavily on the U.S. and traditionally vote in lockstep with it.

    Last December, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China and 162 other nations all supported UN resolution 17/96, guaranteeing the protections of the Geneva Convention to Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

    The Trudeau government joined forces with the United States, Israel, Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands to oppose it.

    Canada has voted against motions that align closely with its own official position, such as a motion to "promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, to support the achievement without delay of an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and of the two-state solution on the basis of the pre-1967 border."

    The Trudeau government voted against that one on Nov. 24, 2015.

    It also voted against motions calling on Israel to respect the "special international regime" status that Jerusalem has officially enjoyed since 1947, even though Canada voted to create that status and it remains part of Canada's official policy.

    And just this month, Canada joined the U.S. and four other small nations to vote against a UN resolution to disavow Israeli ties to Jerusalem, which came amid rumours that Trump was ready to recognize it as the capital of Israel. The resolution passed 151-6.

    'Entirely unchanged'

    The votes have been noted with gratitude by Israel's Canadian supporters. Just three weeks into Trudeau's mandate, Noah Shack, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, praised "Prime Minister Trudeau's commitment that he's reiterated time and again that his government will continue the multi-partisan support for Israel that characterized the previous government."

    Hillel Neuer of pro-Israel group UN Watch "applauded" the Trudeau government, noting its voting pattern was "entirely unchanged from last year."

    The Liberal government has pursued that unpopular path at the UN in spite of its campaign to win a seat on the Security Council, even though a similar pro-Israeli stance was widely assumed to have stymied Canada's bid for a seat under Stephen Harper.

    And while the approach has won plaudits from the Jewish community, it doesn't appear to have stirred discontent among the Liberal party's Arab and Muslim supporters, perhaps because the government has pursued the policy with little fanfare, and the votes have drawn little media notice.

    Little daylight between parties

    The lack of protest or controversy from Canada also reflects the fact that, in recent years, any real daylight between Canada's three main parties over the Israeli-Palestinian issue has disappeared.

    In Europe, parties on the left and right often clash over different visions of which side deserves their support. Canada is more like the United States, where support for Israel is almost the only issue Republicans and Democrats still agree on.

    Stephen Harper's affinity for Israel was legendary. The Liberals' shift away from neutrality to a pro-Israel stance dates back to Paul Martin, and former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said he would back Israel "in all situations, in all circumstances," and proved it by purging party candidates who criticized the Jewish state in the last election.

    Under new NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh that may be changing. Singh on Wednesday called Trump's move an "unacceptable decision" that is "counterproductive and divisive."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trud...rael-1.4436251

  4. #24
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Man Charged with Assault After Allegedly Slapping and Threatening Muslim Teen on Transit

    According to the victim he said “I’m gonna kill you, I’m gonna kill all Muslim people.”

    A man in Vancouver was charged with assault and threatening to cause death or bodily harm after he allegedly slapped a Muslim teenager in the face, pulled at her hijab, and repeatedly threatened to kill her while riding public transit Monday night.

    Pierre Belzan, 46, was arrested following a violent attack that took place December 4 on the Canada Line train, according to the city’s transit police. Though there were around 20 passengers on board at the time, the victim said no one intervened until Belzan slapped her.


    Speaking to VICE, 18-year-old Noor Fadel said she was heading home on the train after work Monday night at around 10 PM when Belzan came up to where she was sitting and began swearing at her in Arabic and a language she didn’t understand.

    “He was saying ‘go back to your country, you slut, you whore. I’m gonna kill you, I’m gonna kill all Muslim people,’”
    Fadel said. She said he began raising his hand and that she stood up in shock.

    “That was when he came closer. In Arabic he said ‘choke on it.’ He tried to grab my head and tried to force me onto his crotch.” She said Belzan had tried to grab her by her hijab.

    “I was thinking to myself ‘I need to film this guy but he’s going to hurt me,’” she said.

    At that point, she said Belzan slapped her across the face.

    That’s when she said a bystander named Jake Taylor yelled at Belzan and stood in front of her, blocking Belzan from accessing her. Belzan got off at the next station, she said, and she and Taylor proceeded to the next stop and reported the incident to transit police.

    According to transit police, Fadel was “extremely traumatized and had trouble breathing” when they first came into contact with her. But she’d been able to take photos of Belzan and that same night he was arrested at a convenience store near Vancouver International Airport.

    Transit police have coordinated with BC Hate Crimes Unit on the investigation. They have also recommended Belzan be charged with sexual assault.


    Fadel, who was born and raised in Vancouver, told VICE she’s experienced verbal assaults “many, many times” but she’s never before been physically attacked.

    While she said it was somewhat “disheartening” that prior to Taylor’s intervention, no other bystanders intervened, she also empathized with other passengers.

    “It’s not just something easy for someone to just get up and risk their life for someone they’ve never seen.”

    She said she now feels “very anxious” while riding public transit, but she has received thousands of responses from other victims of hate crimes since the attack went public. The support has encouraged her to speak out.

    “This wasn’t just an attack on an 18-year-old Muslim, this is an attack on humanity,” she said.

    Last week, Statistics Canada released data that showed police-reported hate crimes went up in 2016—from 1,362 to 1409. The numbers showed hate crimes went up against Arabs, South Asians, West Asians, Jews and LGBTQ people, while the reported attacks against Muslims went down.

    However, police-reported hate crimes against Muslims jumped 253 percent between 2012, when there were 45 incidents and 2015, when there were 159 incidents. In 2016, there were 139 police-reported hate crimes against Muslims.

    https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/y...een-on-transit

  5. #25
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Canadian Paramedics Told Dying Muslim That He's Acting

    13th December 2017

    Emergency services in Canada have launched an investigation after paramedics told a dying Muslim man that he was “acting injured” before he died in hospital less than an hour later.

    Witnesses at Hamilton mosque in Ontario said the 19 year old victim, Yosif Al-Hasnawi, was lying on the ground after he’d been shot.

    “They were grabbing him and they started shaking him hard,”
    said one witness who had been sitting beside Al-Hasnawi at the Al-Moustafa Islamic Centre.

    Al-Hasnawi was shot outside the mosque after trying to stop two men from harassing an older man on the street.

    The paramedics are also being criticised for the length of time it took them to bring Al-Hasnawi to hospital.

    Police do not believe Al-Hasnawi was targeted because of his race or religion. They believe a handgun was used, but have not recovered a weapon.

    Al-Hasnawi was also a talented athlete in basketball and boxing. The family came to Hamilton in 2008 from Iraq.

    A friend said: “He was so generous, he was smart, he was helpful to everyone. He was quiet — he doesn’t talk until you ask him.”

    A funeral was held for Al-Hasnawi on Monday night followed by a prayer service at the mosque. It is expected his body will be sent to Iraq in the next seven or 10 days.

    https://5pillarsuk.com/2017/12/13/in...he-was-acting/

    What can you expect when they are actually taught this kind of racism in their medical textbooks.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41692593

  6. #26
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Canada’s race problem? It’s even worse than America’s.


    For a country so self-satisfied with its image of progressive tolerance, how is this not a national crisis?




    The racial mess in the United States looks pretty grim and is painful to watch. We can be forgiven for being quietly thankful for Canada’s more inclusive society, which has avoided dramas like that in Ferguson, Mo. We are not the only ones to think this. In the recently released Social Progress Index, Canada is ranked second amongst all nations for its tolerance and inclusion.


    Unfortunately, the truth is we have a far worse race problem than the United States. We just can’t see it very easily.


    Terry Glavin, recently writing in the Ottawa Citizen, mocked the idea that the United States could learn from Canada’s example when it comes to racial harmony. To illustrate his point, he compared the conditions of the African-American community to Canada’s First Nations. If you judge a society by how it treats its most disadvantaged, Glavin found us wanting. Consider the accompanying table. By almost every measurable indicator, the Aboriginal population in Canada is treated worse and lives with more hardship than the African-American population. All these facts tell us one thing: Canada has a race problem, too.


    How are we not choking on these numbers? For a country so self-satisfied with its image of progressive tolerance, how is this not a national crisis? Why are governments not falling on this issue?

    Possibly it is because our Fergusons are hidden deep in the bush, accessible only by chartered float plane: 49 per cent of First Nations members live on remote reserves. Those who do live in urban centres are mostly confined to a few cities in the Prairies. Fewer than 40,000 live in Toronto, not even one per cent of the total population of the Greater Toronto Area. Our racial problems are literally over the horizon, out of sight and out of mind.





    Or it could be because we simply do not see the forest for trees. We are distracted by the stories of corrupt band councils, or flooded reserves, or another missing Aboriginal woman. Some of us wring our hands, and a handful of activists protest. There are a couple of unread op-eds, and maybe a Twitter hashtag will skip around for a few days. But nothing changes. Yes, we admit there is a governance problem on the reserves. We might agree that “something” should be done about the missing and murdered women. In Ottawa a few policy wonks write fretful memos on land claims and pipelines. But collectively, we don’t say it out loud: “Canada has a race problem.”


    If we don’t have a race problem then what do we blame? Our justice system, unable to even convene Aboriginal juries? Band administrators, like those in Attawapiskat, who defraud their own people? Our health care system that fails to provide Aboriginal communities with health outcomes on par with El Salvador? Politicians too craven to admit the reserve system has failed? Elders like Chief Ava Hill, cynically willing to let a child die this week from treatable cancer in order to promote Aboriginal rights? Aboriginal people themselves for not throwing out the leaders who serve them so poorly? Police forces too timid to grasp the nettle and confront unbridled criminality like the organized drug-smuggling gangs in Akwesasne? Federal bureaucrats for constructing a $7-billion welfare system that doesn’t work? The school system for only graduating 42 per cent of reserve students? Aboriginal men, who have pushed their community’s murder rate past Somalia’s? The media for not sufficiently or persistently reporting on these facts?


    Or: us? For not paying attention. For believing our own hype about inclusion. For looking down our noses at America and ignorantly thinking, “That would never happen here.” For not acknowledging Canada has a race problem.


    We do and it is bad. And it is not just with the Aboriginal peoples. For new immigrants and the black community the numbers are not as stark, but they tell a depressingly similar story.


    If we want to fix this, the first step is to admit something is wrong. Start by saying it to yourself, but say it out loud: “Canada has a race problem.”

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/o...out-of-mind-2/

  7. #27
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Canada's Trudeau corrects woman for using 'mankind' at town hall

    by Ryan Gaydos - February 6, 2018

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman on her language when she asked a question during a town hall Friday.

    The unidentified woman asked Trudeau whether the Canadian government could ease regulations on volunteering with religious organizations, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

    "So, that’s why we came here today to ask you, to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s
    going to change the future of mankind,” said the woman, who was reportedly affiliated with the World Mission Society Church of God.

    Trudeau immediately corrected her.

    “We like to say ‘peoplekind,' not necessarily ‘mankind,'
    because it’s more inclusive,” he said.

    The crowd clapped after Trudeau’s comments.

    video: http://video.foxnews.com/v/572716269...#sp=show-clips

    The Canadian government has cracked down on language inclusivity over the last week.

    Canada’s Senate passed a bill Thursday to make the country’s national anthem gender neutral. The bill changes the second line of “O Canada” from “true patriot love, in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command.”


    comments:

    This feminist tried to get out of his stupidity by saying he was joking when he was not. This is what feminists want to do with language, they want to replace all the words with "man" in it because it's about the "men" and "excludes women". These feminists even use the word "womyn" instead of "woman" or "women" because they don't want to have anything associated with men. Yet these same femtards have invented new words to attack men, new words like: manterrupting (man interrupting), manspreading (man sitting with knees apart), manxplaining, etc... These womyn really are woemen.

    Some memes mocking him and his feminism:

    http://imghst.co/85/5H_Qz~mt&~.jpg
    http://imghst.co/73/M&~gJ=c8CQ.jpg
    http://imghst.co/89/SWmuxomkk!.jpg
    http://imghst.co/86/zmZ=o2PW=I.jpg
    http://imghst.co/90/4Zs7ftdZ7y.jpg
    http://imghst.co/78/m&AJh!y8Fc.jpg
    http://imghst.co/92/Az6te=U3hc.jpg


  8. #28
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Canadian gender-neutral pronoun bill is a warning for Americans


    Jordan Peterson |professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and a clinical psychologist

    Two weeks ago I posted three YouTube videos about legislative threats to Canadian freedom of speech. I singled out Canada’s Federal Bill C-16, which adds legal protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal code.

    I noted that the policy statements surrounding similar legislation — most particularly those on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website — were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

    These videos attracted a disproportionate amount of attention — online, in the Canadian national media, and beyond. A demonstration at the University of Toronto protested my statements. Another was held in support of free speech. The latter was met by counter-demonstrators who drowned out the speakers with white noise and assaulted a young female journalist — an act now viewed by half a million people on YouTube overall:




    If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.

    Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).

    “They” is also a popular choice, transforming the plural into a new singular, with its advocates arguing (misleadingly, in my opinion) that such use reaches back several hundred years. I have been taken to task for my refusal to abide by the wishes of those demanding such changes to my speech. What are my reasons?
    First, most simply, are the practical problems. The Big Apple now legally protects a non-exhaustive list of 31 gender identities.


    Facebook offers a choice of 58. Is that not the instant reductio ad absurdum of the gender extremists’ claims? Are the denizens of New York now legally required to employ a new pronoun for each of these many identities? How are they supposed to keep track of who’s who? And who is going to distinguish between mistakes and criminal action or intent?

    It also turns out that pronouns are not so easy to change — particularly by fiat — because they are part of a “closed linguistic category” resistant to alteration.

    Second, more complexly, are the political issues. “Gender-neutral” pronouns are, in my opinion, part of the PC Game.” Here’s how you play:
    First, you identify a domain of human endeavor. It could be the wealth of people within a society. It could be the psychological well-being of individuals within a given organization. It could be the prowess of school children at a particular sport.

    Second, you note the inevitable continuum of success. Some people are richer or happier than others. Some children are better at playing volleyball.

    Third, you define those doing comparatively better as oppressors of those doing comparatively worse.

    Fourth, and finally, you declare solidarity with the latter, and enmity for the former (now all-too-convenient targets for your resentment and hatred).


    You have now established your moral superiority, cost-free, and can trumpet it at will.

    Words such as zie and hir, are, in my opinion, moves in the PC game. It’s not a game I wish to play. We shouldn’t reduce complex, uncertain issues to a one-size-fits-all formula. Instead, we should think things through carefully, using words of our own choice. It’s a free speech issue, in its essence.

    People often defend freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens must retain the right to criticize their leaders. That’s true, but it’s not the fundamental truth.

    Freedom of speech protects our societies from shipwreck on the Scylla of tyranny and the Charybdis of nihilism and despair. Freedom of speech allows us to identify the problems that beset us. Freedom of speech allows us to formulate solutions to those problems, and to reach consensus on the solutions.
    There is nothing in the absence of freedom of speech but tyranny and slavery.

    Bill C-16, and its legislative sisters, are particularly insidious constructions.

    So, a note from a Canadian friend. The citizens of your great country, and ours — and of our allies across the Western world — are at risk.

    Careless, ideologically-addled legislators are forcing us to use words we did not freely choose. We have to draw a line in the sand. That’s why people are watching. It’s a vitally important issue. We cannot afford to get it wrong.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ouns-and-has-a





    The Silencing of Jordan Peterson



    critic of gender-neutral pronouns is coming under fire in Canada.





    Earlier this month, Google temporarily banned a clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor, Jordan Peterson, from accessing his YouTube channel. His channel hosts lengthy lectures on Jung, Nietzsche, the Bible and, most controversially, his opposition against Canada’s Bill C-16, passed by the Senate in June. The new legislation adds federal protections for transgender people to the Human Rights Code and the hate crime category of the Criminal Code. Peterson has generated quite a following for his opposition to the bill, which he finds to be an infringement on free speech. As per the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC), it is now punishable if individuals refuse to use non-gender pronouns such as “ze” or “zir” to refer to transgender people.

    The OHRCwebsite explicitly states: “Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.” According to Peterson, no explanation was given for the ban, yet it was unlikely a coincidence that it happened on the day YouTube released its own hate speech and anti-terrorism guidelines. In October 2016, his university sent him two letters, one of which warned him that refusing to use personal pronouns is tantamount to discrimination.

    In April this year, Peterson was also denied a federal research grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the first time in his academic career. His objections to subscribe to the bill’s mandates have been deluged with accusations of bigotry from students and colleagues, as evidenced in the numerous videos being circulating on the web. In one, Peterson is harangued on the campus of the University of Toronto, with students shouting “Shame!” as he attempts to speak over them. In another video, a mob yells “Shut him down!” in a packed lecture room at McMaster University. Bill C-16 sets a new precedent. Whereas the country’s hate speech laws have restricted speech in the past, the new law compels speech, which, as Peterson argues, is invented, politically connotative and anti-scientific. Conservative Senator Grant Mitchell, another dissenter of the bill, stated that “transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender.” Pronouns like “ze,” “zir,” “hir” or “xem” only reveal the surface of just how far astray the English language is being taken.

    In 2014, Facebook introduced 58 gender options to choose from, allowing users to customize from the following year. Among them are neutrois, two-spirit, pangender, gender fluid, gender questioning and intersex. In New York City, the government recognizes 31. As of yet, there is no criterion as to what constitutes an acceptable pronoun, so constructing any legal precedent entirely based upon the subjective measurement by an individual is virtually untenable. Adherents of the bill also tout that there is no connection between gender identity and biological sex, thus arguing that orthodox pronouns like “he” or “she” are antiquated ideological constructions that should be removed from our lexicon.

    A 2016 study in The New Atlantis co-authored by the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Paul McHugh, and scholar-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence Mayer, complicated this narrative and was summarily rejected by progressives. The study reviewed the scientific research on gender and sexual identity and surmised that the hypothesis that “gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings and is independent of biological sex” is scientifically inconclusive. The majority of children with a persistent desire to identify with the other sex also grow out of it by adulthood, contrary to the curriculums foisted by many public schools today.

    History shows that well-intended policies do not always lead to positive results. The new legislation sets a dangerous precedent to be compelled to use language that one finds fundamentally false. Peterson’s critics call him a scaremonger, but his warnings should not be taken lightly. The university campus, however, is mired in identity politics and has rebuffed any possibility for a plurality of voices to be heard. The media has trumpeted transgenderism as another minority group to be emancipated to boost ratings. Silicon Valley groupthink, too, has showed time and again that it is not immune to removing people it deems controversial. The imperatives of free speech are to allow expression that you find objectionable, but it is also the process by which ordinary people can settle disputes organically. It is the bedrock of any free society and should be defended at all costs.



    https://www.fairobserver.com/region/...te-news-51321/




    Comments:

    All of these are the works of the shaytan and his minions to break down the society from everything that is normal and decent. These self identifying clowns then will be going to any gender restroom they want or shower room they want. Western societies are decaying more and more each day.






 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •