YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 2016/09/27: Part 1: Fear and the Law

2016/09/27: Part 1: Fear and the Law — Transcript

by Jordan B Peterson · 8,761 words · 1,318 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:05so I've been informed about a couple of
0:08things this week that have really been
0:10bothering me and I thought that I wasn't
0:13sure what to do about it I've been
0:16communicating with some of my friends
0:17and colleagues about it but that wasn't
0:20enough so I thought I'd try to write my
0:23thoughts down and then talk about them a
0:26little bit and see where I got with that
0:29so I've entitled this talk professor
0:34against political correctness and the
0:38reason for that is because it's blunt
0:39and to the point I'm very concerned
0:43about what's happening in the
0:44universities it's not so bad in Canada
0:47I've been fortunate very fortunate at
0:49the University of Toronto but there are
0:51continually things happening including
0:53in the administration here and in the
0:55broader political world that make me
0:57very nervous I like to attribute that to
1:00the fact that I know something about the
1:02way that totalitarian and authoritarian
1:04political states develop and I can't
1:07help but think that I'm seeing a fair
1:10bit of that right now so I guess I also
1:14wanted to do this because there's a
1:18misapprehension that everyone in
1:20academia is politically correct and
1:23that's is true very frequently among
1:26social scientists about 20 percent of
1:28whom identify themselves as Marxists
1:30which in my estimation by the way is no
1:32better than identifying as Nazis given
1:35the murderous nough some arcs is
1:37doctrine and the fact that we know how
1:38it's turned out when implemented in
1:40multiple countries now but I'm not
1:44politically correct and I want to talk
1:50to you today about why all this worries
1:52me so I got wind of two events this week
1:57one actually dates from last May there
2:02is a legislation passed or the first
2:05reading of legislation in the federal
2:07house set in Canada about a bill called
2:11c16 which was in
2:14is an attempt to alter the Canadian bill
2:16of Human Rights it's tangled up with
2:20another organization that operates at a
2:23provincial level in Canada in Ontario
2:25which is the province I reside in called
2:27the Ontario Human Rights Commission and
2:30as far as I can tell what happens at the
2:34Ontario Human Rights Commission is
2:35rapidly turned into policy in multiple
2:38provinces across Canada and perhaps
2:40increasingly at the federal level
2:42there's a Liberal government in power
2:45that's the name of the political party
2:47in Ontario and now there's a Liberal
2:48government federally and there is
2:51obviously a fair bit of cross influence
2:53for better for worse also this week I
2:56got wind of a University of Toronto
2:58human resources initiative that also
3:02upset me I guess we could say quite
3:05profoundly and so I thought I'd talk
3:07about all of those and try to see if I
3:08can make some sense out of them
3:17you
4:06so I've I'm making this video because I
4:10don't really know what else to do
4:11I've talked to some colleagues and I've
4:13talked to some colleagues as I or some
4:16some some people inside the university
4:20and outside the university that I know
4:21and they're upset and worried about this
4:25but unclear about what to do and all of
4:28this scares me I guess and here's why
4:31I'm the law the changes to the law scare
4:33me because they they put into the legal
4:40substructure of the culture certain
4:43assumptions about basic human nature
4:44that not only do I believe to be untrue
4:48I think they're also dangerous and
4:50ideologically motivated I also don't
4:52think that the reason for the legal
4:54changes is the stated reason the laws
4:58scare me the doctrines behind the laws
5:01scare me and you know when they're when
5:03there's a law there's a body of thought
5:05that's associated with an a body of
5:07interpretations that are associated with
5:09it that flesh out the law because the
5:12law is a pretty bare thing and I've read
5:14I wouldn't say extensively because
5:18extensively is a lot but I've read
5:20enough about the doctrines behind the
5:22laws so that that has also make also
5:25makes me very nervous
5:27increasingly I see that these more
5:30radical ideas the ideas that we're going
5:32to discuss are bought in people buy in
5:35at the administrative level in large
5:36organizations corporate governmental it
5:39doesn't matter it as long as the
5:41organization is large there's increasing
5:44administrative buy and a lot of this
5:46seems to me to be driven by human
5:48resources departments which I think are
5:51generally the most pathological elements
5:54of large organizations and I say that
5:56because if I've actually had fairly
5:58extensive experience dealing with human
6:00resources departments
6:02I think HR training is very politically
6:05correct like many disciplines we'll talk
6:08about that later the people behind the
6:11doctrines also scare me I think that
6:14generally they're a very bad combination
6:17of resentful
6:19uninformed and that's good enough
6:26resentful and uninformed that's good
6:28enough I also think that their aims are
6:32destructive we rather than constructive
6:34they claim constructive aims but of
6:37course everyone claims constructive aims
6:39but the actions that I see undertaken
6:41seem to be to be driven by resentment
6:43and primarily by resentment and and so I
6:49did I doubt the validity of the claims
6:50the claims are always for equality and
6:52diversity and that kind of thing and
6:55those words are very easy to say but a
6:57lot harder to put into practice so I'm
6:59scared by the people behind the
7:01doctrines I'm scared by the response of
7:05my colleagues at the University a number
7:08of them are unnerved by the continual
7:10move towards political correctness and
7:12I'm going to tell you a couple of
7:14responses that I've got recently from
7:16people that I think are quite brave by
7:18the way but worried about making a
7:22statement putting their careers on their
7:24line worried about being tortured to
7:25death by people on line worried about
7:28administrative over response or even
7:30administrative response worried well
7:33here's why the things that I'm seeing at
7:35work will have to be discussed in a
7:37phone conversation this is a professor
7:39an American professor I asked how this
7:42person was feeling about the position
7:47that they held at the University the
7:51person said the thing that I'm seeing at
7:53work will have to be discussed in a
7:54phone conversation it's hard for me
7:56personally to explain it in email I'm
7:59not certain
8:00this is the career path I'm interested
8:02in anymore I actually find myself
8:04sensory things censoring things that I'd
8:07normally say to students and I'm not
8:08sure how to stop that self censorship
8:10the censorship leads to me not truly
8:12educating them in a manner that will let
8:14me feel like I've done my job well it's
8:17not as much from the administration yet
8:19as it is from the students see I don't
8:21see that so much at the University of
8:23Toronto the students here are so
8:25terrified of the job market and
8:26generally speaking so diligent
8:28conscientious that they are not
8:31particularly sidetracked by
8:33political correctness so but that's
8:37obviously not my colleagues experience
8:39in the US this is in California another
8:42colleague this is more local said
8:45something I thought was very intelligent
8:46I think that's why this sort of thing is
8:49so difficult to stand up to the personal
8:53consequences of objecting are huge and
8:55this person is referring to the
8:58possibility of adverse job effects I
9:00guess effects unemployment and you think
9:03tenure would protect people against that
9:05and I suppose it probably does but it's
9:07that doesn't mean that people are
9:08necessarily willing to put it to the
9:10test
9:11and they're worried about being
9:13pilloried online by social justice
9:16warriors and and and and so on and
9:19having the reputation savaged and
9:20demolished so you know I'm not that's a
9:23good that's a good that's a reasonable
9:26fear especially given the next part
9:28which is the effect of my objection on
9:30society will be minuscule so there's
9:32this combination that's the idea anyways
9:34the personal consequences of JEP
9:37objecting are potentially huge in that
9:39the social effects are miniscule
9:41there'll be no positive effect and so
9:43the the thinking goes why put yourself
9:48and potentially your family and your
9:49financial stability and all about at
9:51risk by speaking out when the
9:53consequences will be will be minimal and
9:56you know I've talked to other people
9:58outside of academia academia writers for
10:01example who've had friends who've made a
10:03comment online you know which they
10:06thought was rather innocuous that's
10:08quoted over and over again and some some
10:10times in major newspapers as you know
10:12emblematic of their particular stance
10:14and that shows them in a very harsh
10:17light so anyways this particular
10:20colleague concluded by saying we should
10:22have acted 10 years ago well you know I
10:26feel for both of these colleagues I
10:28think they're both excellent educators
10:30by the way and they're also I would say
10:33classically liberal people you know
10:36they're not they're not you you wouldn't
10:39call them conservatives you certainly
10:42wouldn't call them right-wingers they're
10:44people
10:48their concerns aren't driven by their
10:50political ideologies it's as simple as
10:52that their concerns are driven by their
10:56by their continual observations
11:00increasingly continual observations that
11:03things are not going in the proper
11:05direction in universities and that it's
11:08becoming increasingly difficult for
11:10professors and and students for that
11:12matter at least of a particular kind of
11:14political orientation to even have the
11:17opportunity to say what they think so
11:19okay so that scares me it scares me when
11:22I see we'd decent people and I think
11:25people who are more courageous than
11:27average frightened into submission and
11:31considering altering their career paths
11:32because they don't feel that they can
11:35say what they think anymore and they're
11:37afraid of the direction that the
11:38universities are going so yeah that's
11:41scary so then I'm I'm a clinical
11:44psychologist this is starting to affect
11:47my clients I've had three clients in the
11:49last two years who have been and who
11:52have been driven near the point of
11:55insanity by politically correct
11:58occurrences at work one of them was a
12:01bank employee what what finally did her
12:05in fundamentally was she sent me a very
12:10long email chain referring to a series
12:15of discussions that happened in in this
12:18Bank internally about whether or not the
12:20word flipchart you know referring to
12:23those large pads of paper that you put
12:27up on a stand that you can flip forward
12:29and draw on kind of an archaic
12:30technology now whether or not the word
12:32flip chart was pejorative and racist and
12:35the reason for that was that apparently
12:37the word flip can be used pejoratively
12:40to refer to filipinos which is something
12:43I didn't even know and I suppose a
12:46Filipino could conceivably take offense
12:49to having a pad of paper named flipchart
12:54although it's hard to imagine the
12:56circumstances under which that might
12:57arise or at least once it was hard to
12:59imagine
12:59anyways she gave me access to a string
13:03of email conversations about that
13:05particular topic and the bank did
13:07eventually agree to stop using the term
13:12flipchart I don't know what they
13:14replaced it with but you know she was a
13:19very very sensible person an immigrant
13:22by the way who couldn't reconcile her
13:31requirement
13:32you know her moral requirement to work
13:34hard and be productive and be sensible
13:36and be conscientious with the fact that
13:39people were being called oh called on to
13:44alter their behavior in ways that were
13:47absolutely nonsensical and she was from
13:49an Eastern European country and of
13:51course for her this was reminiscent of
13:52the tactics of the worst of the
13:55ideologues in the 1970s and 80s and
13:59before that so it was very very hard on
14:02her she she was very very stressed by
14:04the situation at work and then I had
14:07another client who worked in an HR
14:09department in a major educational
14:10institute and he was always being called
14:13on to manifest his support for various
14:16feminist initiatives at the educational
14:18institute and he wasn't really all that
14:21comfortable presenting himself as a pro
14:24feminist because he actually wasn't one
14:26and you can argue one way or another
14:29about the propriety of that and that's
14:31really not my point my point is is that
14:35he believed and I think with cause that
14:38his job would have been in jeopardy if
14:39he would have let his objections to the
14:43demands of the political environment
14:45within the workplace if he would have
14:48made those objections known and and I
14:51would say he's he's a little bit more he
14:53was a little bit more to the right than
14:54most of the people that that I've talked
14:57with but not to any great degree
14:58although like many people I think he's
15:01being driven in that direction by the
15:02continual radical moves to the left that
15:05seemed to be part and parcel of every
15:07organization in in in maybe in modern
15:11Western society now
15:13and then the other client that I had who
15:16was very much troubled by this was a
15:19social worker who was was I think she
15:22was she was she was a immigrant as well
15:24quite conservative from she was from a
15:28conservative culture and was very much
15:31they had very much difficulty with the
15:34demands for example that she allow non
15:38surgically altered transsexual men free
15:41access to the women's shelters and the
15:43women's shelters for example here are
15:46some of the people in them obviously say
15:48or Muslim women who come from very
15:50conservative cultures who really can't
15:53even function in a situation where you
15:56know a male biological male has been
16:01given access to what in principle is
16:04supposed to be a woman's shelter and and
16:05that was one of many things that that
16:08bothered her but we don't need to get
16:11into that the point is is that I've had
16:13people who've been driven to seek
16:15psychological counseling because of the
16:17effect of politically correct oppression
16:20on them in the workplace and so that's
16:23worrisome so that's a whole bunch of
16:27things that make me nervous
16:28and then my own response scares me I
16:31find this stuff maddening I can't really
16:35believe the amount of foolishness that
16:38that that that that has accumulated
16:42around these rather contentious Marxist
16:47semi Marxist political issues which I
16:52have which I don't I have no respect for
16:55as I said already I think that Marxism
16:58and Neel Marxism is no better than
17:00fascism and neo-fascism I think the
17:03historical evidence for that is
17:04absolutely clear I can't understand why
17:06we think it's acceptable for academics
17:09and their followers to call themselves
17:12Marxist to the neo-marxists but we we
17:15would we we would not for a second
17:19countenance the same thing from the
17:20fascists in the neo-fascists
17:29anyways the upside of it is is that I'm
17:31nervous about doing this lecture and
17:33I've also become nervous about some of
17:36the things that I'm teaching which i
17:38think and I'm going to discuss this a
17:39little bit further or look further on in
17:41this in this discussion I think that
17:43some of the things that I say in my
17:45lectures now might be illegal I think
17:47they might even be I think that they
17:50might even be sufficient to me to be for
17:52me to be brought before the Ontario
17:54Human Rights Commission under their
17:55amended hate speech laws and that scares
17:58me as well and it scares me that I think
18:00that because it sounds paranoid but most
18:05of the time in the past when I've been
18:06concerned that the that something is
18:10going to happen at an administrative or
18:12bureaucratic level at the university
18:14that it's it's frequently the case that
18:18when I'm worried about something
18:19happening that it does actually happen
18:21and that it's not so much worry as an
18:23ability to see high probability outcomes
18:26down into the future so and you know
18:29even if even if the things that I'm
18:32saying are haven't been made illegal or
18:35you know heaven forbid transformed into
18:37suddenly into hate speech I am nervous
18:41that they might be and even that's
18:43making it more difficult for me to teach
18:45because in order for me to teach I have
18:48to say what I think is true and I can't
18:51do that if I'm afraid if I have to be
18:54afraid of the consequences I'll stop
18:57talking you know even oh if you can say
19:04one thing or the other and there's a lot
19:05of pressure not to say the first thing
19:07and you could just as easily say the
19:09second thing it's just as easy to say
19:11the second thing why not just not bother
19:15with it you know well the reason I can't
19:17do that is because if I have something
19:19to say and I don't say it then it drives
19:20me crazy and so and that's not something
19:23I'm willing to I'm not willing to go
19:26down that path and I've already decided
19:28that I'm going to try to tell people
19:29what I think and and to tell them what I
19:31think to be the truth even though it's
19:33the truth that I think that I'm not
19:36saying that what I think is true I mean
19:39who knows what's true that's why we have
19:41freedom of speech right to sort out
19:43what's true so but I can tell you that
19:46it's true that I'm scared about this and
19:48I think that's appalling I really think
19:50that's appalling all right so this is
19:53Bill c16 and and somebody sent this to
19:57me this week and pointing out what was
20:00happening with regards to this
20:01fundamental Canadian human rights
20:03legislation and I'm going to do a bad
20:05job of this because it take it takes
20:08more time than I have to do this
20:09properly so all I can do is tell you my
20:14initial thoughts and try to justify them
20:16as best I can
20:18it would take months to do this lecture
20:22properly and I haven't got months to do
20:24it property so I'm going to have to do
20:26it badly so here we go so bill c16 is an
20:29act to amend the Canadian Human Rights
20:31Act in the Criminal Code so these are
20:33major this is a major Amendment because
20:35the Human Rights Act and the Criminal
20:37Code are major pieces of legislation
20:38they affect everyone and the
20:40consequences for contravening them are
20:42severe as severe as severe consequences
20:46can be short of you know of illness and
20:49death so they're non-trivial pieces of
20:52legislation now if you guys aren't in
20:55Canada you might wonder why you should
20:56care about this but what's happening in
20:58Canada is happening throughout the West
21:01so I'm going to concentrate on the local
21:05occurrences but you can think you can be
21:07sure they're emblematic of similar
21:09things happening in your jurisdictions
21:10so because this is certainly not only a
21:13Canadian problem and in fact I would say
21:16to to some fairly large degree Canada
21:20has been reasonably free of this
21:22especially at the university level and
21:23and it's almost as if we're importing it
21:26unnecessarily but ok this enactment
21:29amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to
21:31add gender identity and gender
21:33expression to the list of prohibited
21:36grounds of discrimination now this
21:39amendment has only gone through first
21:41reading this was back in May but similar
21:43legislation has already been passed in a
21:45number of provinces those are the
21:46smaller like this they're like states
21:49they're the smaller subdivisions of the
21:51Canadian political system so
21:53this hasn't been made into law federally
21:56but it it's it's likely going to and it
22:00already has at the provincial level as I
22:02said so this enactment also amends the
22:06Criminal Code to extend the protection
22:07against hate propaganda set out in that
22:10act to any section of the public that is
22:13distinguished by gender identity or
22:15expression and to clearly set out that
22:19evidence that an offense was motivated
22:21by bias prejudice or hate based on
22:23gender identity or expression
22:25constitutes an aggravating circumstance
22:27that a court must take into
22:28consideration when it imposes a sentence
22:31okay so that's basically a hate crime
22:34modification so if you commit a crime
22:37well that's one thing but if you commit
22:39a crime and it's motivated by bias
22:42prejudice or hate based on age sex race
22:47ethnic identity and so so and other
22:50things including now gender identity or
22:52expression then that makes the crime
22:55worse it falls into the category of hate
22:57crime and so that's what this
22:59modification is intended to produce or
23:03to bring about so any any crime that is
23:08associated with bias prejudice or hate
23:11based on gender identity or expression
23:13is now an aggravating circumstance okay
23:16so so it's a hate crime now I have some
23:20real problems with hate speech
23:21legislation and the reason I have
23:24problems with it is that it's not
23:26obvious wind' speech is motivated by
23:29hate angry speech can feel like it's
23:33motivated by hate but angry speech is
23:37the only kind of speech in some sense
23:39that is indicative of real disagreement
23:42I mean I'm not saying that all
23:43disagreement should be angry I'm just
23:45saying that if there is real
23:48disagreement the it's all anger is often
23:52the evidence for the existence of real
23:55disagreement and if there's real
23:56disagreement angry people have to talk
23:59it out because if they don't then well
24:03then a bunch of terrible things happen
24:05first of all
24:06you start losing track of who the angry
24:08people are second they don't get to say
24:11what's on their mind and even listen to
24:13themselves they don't get to have other
24:15people tell them that they're wrong they
24:17don't get to modify their viewpoints
24:19because talking is thinking you know and
24:22if you start people from talking then
24:23you stop them from thinking and that's a
24:25really bad thing and then if you if you
24:27if you interpret hate speech too broadly
24:30then you drive the so called haters
24:34underground and then you don't know what
24:36they're up to and when people go
24:37underground that isn't good that that's
24:39really not good you get the rise of all
24:43sorts of underground political movements
24:45when people aren't able to express what
24:47they think even though it's unpleasant
24:49so if you want to know where the haters
24:51are then you have to let them talk you
24:52know we even tell two-year-olds who are
24:55angry we say well use your words and the
24:58reason we tell two-year-olds that is
24:59because the alternative to using your
25:01words is using your fists and so if we
25:04don't let angry people talk then the
25:06only they only have to two alternatives
25:09well apart from changing their mind and
25:12they're not going to change their mind
25:13just if you just shut someone up that
25:14doesn't change their mind because partly
25:17the way you change your mind is by
25:19talking and thinking and communicating
25:21with other people and if you shut that
25:22Avenue off for people then they can't
25:24change their minds well then they either
25:27they pull it in and get resentful you
25:30know that's one option they don't take
25:31any action or they get aggressive and
25:33violent or they start agitating for
25:34violence and so you know I can't help
25:38but think that well there's a famous
25:45psychoanalytic psychoanalytic dictum if
25:48you don't understand the motivation for
25:50something look at the outcome and infer
25:52the motivation well if the outcome of
25:55shutting people up is that they get
25:57violent then it's hard for me to
25:59suppress the suspicion that it was the
26:03incitement of violence that was at least
26:04part of the initial motivation for for
26:08producing the restriction now I think
26:11there's a lot more to it than that you
26:14know I think a lot of it is a lot of
26:16this desire for people not to ever say
26:18anything upsetting is
26:20actually a consequence of trait
26:21agreeableness which is a big five
26:23psychological trait and really agreeable
26:25people are egalitarian by nature but
26:28they also don't like conflict and but
26:29what that means is they don't like
26:31short-term conflict you know they don't
26:34like anybody to be upset and the problem
26:37is sometimes you have to be upset in the
26:39present to solve problems in the medium
26:42and the long term you know you can't
26:44stop people from talking about upsetting
26:47things because as I said that's just the
26:49same as stopping them from thinking and
26:50and if they can't think really
26:52complicated things through well then
26:54they don't solve problems and then the
26:56problems manifest themselves in the real
26:58world it's no joke so there's a recent
27:02case of Lionel Shriver who's a who's a
27:06well I won't talk about her you can look
27:09her up I'll try to stick to the point
27:10here so this is also part of Bill c16
27:18this is modification of section two of
27:20the Canadian Human Rights Act purpose
27:23the purpose of this act is to extend the
27:26laws in Canada to give effect within the
27:28purview of matters coming within the
27:30legislative authority of Parliament
27:31that's Canada's highest governing body
27:33the principle that all individuals
27:36should have an opportunity equal with
27:38other individuals to make for themselves
27:40the lives that they are able and wish to
27:42have and to have their needs
27:43accommodated consistent with their
27:45duties and obligations as members of
27:47society without being hindered in or
27:50prevented from doing so by
27:52discriminatory practices based on race
27:55national or ethnic origin color religion
27:57age sex sexual orientation and now
28:00hypothetically gender identity or
28:03expression marital status family status
28:06disability or conviction for an offense
28:08for which a pardon has been granted or
28:10in respect of which a record suspension
28:12has been ordered okay so well what's
28:15problematic about this
28:17well I've outlined some of it in yellow
28:19I don't really like the idea of wish to
28:21have the lives that they're able and
28:23wish to have and then to have their
28:26needs accommodated
28:27well it's messy it's messy terminology
28:34it's not easy to delineate needs there's
28:37an infinite number of them it's very
28:40very difficult to determine whose needs
28:42should take priority in fact that's why
28:45we have a free-market society we have a
28:48free-market society so that people's
28:49needs can be voted on in some sense by
28:53the purchasing power of free individuals
28:55so that nobody no central committee no
28:58governing body has to decide whose needs
29:00should be accommodated
29:02it's an infinitely complex problem and
29:04it can't be solved by Fiat it's not
29:06possible and this was happened in places
29:08like the so this this was attempted in
29:10places like the Soviet Union where need
29:13decisions were constantly made by
29:15centralized committees and the
29:16consequence was absolutely catastrophic
29:18not only was it economically suicidal it
29:21was also murderous so the whole idea of
29:24having needs accommodated is a very very
29:26it's a very very slippery idea and it
29:28sounds good but it's very very dangerous
29:32it's dangerous because the question who
29:35decides whose needs are paramount is the
29:39crucial question and how is that it's
29:42answered is the crucial issue and that
29:45can go seriously wrong and then well the
29:50inclusion of gender identity or
29:51expression well will we'll discuss that
29:55momentarily and there's also
29:59modification of section 3 for all
30:02purposes of this act the prohibited
30:04grounds of discrimination are race
30:06national or ethnic origin color religion
30:08age sex sexual orientation and then
30:10again newly gender identity or
30:12expression marital status family status
30:17so this is the criminal code
30:19modification modification of subsection
30:21318 4 where they define an identifiable
30:24group and this is for the purpose of
30:26determining who fundamentally is
30:28uttering hate speech or discriminatory
30:30speech and this includes all the
30:33candidates we already described color
30:35race religion national ethnic origin etc
30:38and includes gender identity or
30:40expression and so well will will
30:45continue to talk about that
30:46and then there's modifications of
30:50subparagraph 718 to a again with regards
30:56to hate crime evidence that the offense
30:58was motivated by bias prejudice or hate
31:01based on race national ethnic origin
31:04language color religion etc including
31:06gender identity expression or any other
31:08simpler similar factor the offense was
31:12motivated by okay so this sort of
31:15legislation has already come into play
31:16in provinces in Canada Alberta British
31:20Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador Nova
31:22Scotia Prince Edward Island and and
31:24Ontario and I'm going to concentrate on
31:26Ontario because I think a lot of this is
31:29emanating from a small coterie of people
31:31behind the Ontario Human Rights
31:33Commission which is a particularly
31:35pathological organization in my
31:37estimation and perhaps the biggest enemy
31:40of freedom currently extent in Canada
31:42and I don't say that lightly so the
31:46reason I think the Ontario Human Rights
31:48Commission is is an emblematic
31:51institution in this regard is partly
31:53because I think that the that social
31:57justice warrior type activists are
31:59over-represented in the current
32:01provincial government Federer the
32:05current liberal provincial government
32:06and I can't help but shake this I can't
32:09help but manifest the suspicion that
32:11that's partly because our current
32:14premier is lesbian in her sexual
32:17preference and that in itself doesn't
32:20bother me one way or another I don't
32:22think it's relevant to the political
32:23discussion except insofar as the LBGT
32:26community has become extraordinarily
32:28good at organizing themselves and has a
32:31fairly pronounced and very very
32:34sophisticated radical fringe and I can't
32:41help but see the hand of that in what
32:44I'm going to read to you and you can
32:45make up your own mind and see if you
32:47think the same thing so the wording on
32:49the Ontario Human Rights Commission with
32:51regards to legislation like Bill c16 is
32:55the same it's identical to that on the
32:57Canadian Department of
32:59i given you the links here and so that's
33:02another indication to me that there's
33:04tremendous crosstalk between these
33:05institutions one at the provincial level
33:07that's the Ontario one and one at the
33:09federal level because the wording is
33:11identical so that's the argument for
33:13overlap and the other thing too with
33:19regards to the LBGT angle on this is
33:21that the wording is identical in many
33:23regards to that that's commonly used by
33:26LBGT activists and so that's why I'm
33:29putting the different organizations
33:32together and as I said before I'm not
33:34saying this is right it's what I've been
33:37able to sort out it's what I've been
33:39able to puzzle out and I'm putting it
33:41forward as an element of discussion okay
33:44so here are some of the definitions that
33:45they use and these are now explicit
33:48categories and implicit presumptions of
33:50our most fundamental legal structures so
33:52now these have become something these
33:54definitions have become something more
33:56than fact they've become facts that you
33:59question at your legal peril so here's
34:03the first one gender identity this is
34:05directly from the Ontario Human Resource
34:07Human Rights Commission website gender
34:11identity is each person's internal and
34:13individual experience of gender it is
34:16their sense of being a woman a man both
34:19neither or anywhere along the gender
34:22spectrum now I'd also like to point out
34:25that that's relatively this is a petty
34:28thing to say I suppose but one of the
34:31things that struck me about the Ontario
34:33Human Rights Commission website is that
34:34it's fairly poor very poorly written and
34:37this particular sentence is very poorly
34:40written and policy that's on its way to
34:44be transformed into legislation should
34:46not be poorly written because it means
34:48it's being poorly thought through and
34:49poorly specified and it means that the
34:52people who are doing it aren't being
34:53careful and that makes me nervous and so
34:57then there's things in here that I don't
34:58believe to be true gender identity is
35:01each person's sense of being a woman a
35:04man both neither or anywhere along the
35:08gender spectrum
35:12I don't know what neither means because
35:17I don't know what the options are if
35:19you're not a man or a woman it's not
35:22obvious to me how you can be both
35:23because those are by definition binary
35:26categories there's an idea that there's
35:30a gender spectrum but I don't think that
35:32that's a valid idea I don't think
35:33there's any evidence for it
35:35biological sexuality is ancient it's
35:37hundreds of millions of years old and
35:39it's binary because there's two forms of
35:43of biological sex now of course this is
35:47predicated on the idea that your gender
35:49is somehow independent from your from
35:52your biological sex but that's a
35:53proposition not a fact and even if it's
35:56true it's even if it even if it in some
36:00manner was determined to be true it is
36:02certainly not determined to be true to
36:06that degree now and certainly not to the
36:08degree that it should be instantiated in
36:10law at most it's an opinion and I think
36:13it's an ill informed opinion I think
36:16it's a politically motivated an ill
36:17informed opinion and now it's got the
36:20force of law and then there's another
36:23modification which is gender expression
36:26which is something different than gender
36:27identity so I guess there's biological
36:29sex and then on top of that there's
36:31gender identity which is separate
36:34they're not even correlated they're they
36:35don't bear one or any relationship to
36:37one another I guess one is choice or it
36:39isn't exactly clear I mean here's one of
36:42the things I find very confusing it
36:45seems to me that the leftist activists
36:49have made the claim that with regards to
36:52transsexual individuals for example that
36:54you can be a man in a woman's body and
36:58that that's a biological reality or that
36:59you can be a woman in a man's body and
37:01that's a biological reality so as long
37:05as your gender identity is opposite to
37:11that of your biological Cardinal
37:14biological sexual attributes then that's
37:16biologically determined but if your
37:19gender identity is in sync with your
37:22biological attributes then that's
37:25a free-floating cultural construct
37:28unless I've got my logic wrong somehow
37:30and I cannot see how both of those
37:33things can possibly be true but I don't
37:35think that coherence is one of the
37:37hallmarks of radical politically correct
37:40thinking and you can tell that because
37:43politically correct people like the
37:46people who have produced this
37:47legislation and these policies are
37:50capable of saying things like it is
37:52their sense meaning each person's by the
37:55way it is their sense of being maybe
38:00maybe an individual can decide to be a
38:03plurality as well and that's why there
38:05is being used as the pronoun in this
38:07particular sentence although I think the
38:11real reason is is that the person who
38:12wrote this can't write it is their sense
38:14of being a woman a man both neither or
38:16anywhere along the gender spectrum from
38:19my perspective that sentence is entirely
38:21nonsensical and now it's law and then
38:24okay so we've got biological sex we've
38:26got gender identity and then on top of
38:28that we've got gender expression which I
38:29guess is how you express your gender
38:31identity which is separate from your
38:33biological sexual orientation it's the
38:36way people publicly present their gender
38:37it is the presentation of gender through
38:40such aspects as dress hair makeup body
38:42language and voice okay well those are
38:45canonical categories now and it isn't
38:47clear to me because of the legislation
38:49it's possible I believe it's possible
38:52that my commentary on these definitions
38:55is now illegal and that it's also now
38:59potentially classifiable as hate speech
39:00and I would say if that's the case then
39:04like
39:12well it's the sort of thing I'm going to
39:14question and if someone should be put in
39:17jail for questioning now that I
39:19questioning that mmm then I guess I
39:22should be put in jail because I'm going
39:24to continue to question it I think it's
39:25nonsensical I think the formulation is
39:27absurd I think it has no scientific
39:29standing I think it's ideologically
39:31motivated I think it's divisive I think
39:33it's dangerous
39:34it causes chaos it confuses people
39:37there's no upside to it and for any for
39:40every one person that this potential
39:42transformation of legislation is going
39:44to free from oppression it's going to
39:46deftly confuse a hundred more and I say
39:51that is I say that is a clinician with
39:53some experience in this matter more
39:57definitions the code does not define the
39:59grounds of gender identity gender
40:01expression or sex instead the
40:04understanding of these and other related
40:06terms and the implications for the code
40:08that's the Ontario Human Rights Code and
40:10Ontario Human Rights Commission policies
40:13is evolving from tribunal and Court
40:15decisions social science research as
40:17well as self identity in common everyday
40:19use more definitions sex is the
40:22anatomical classification of people as
40:24male female or intersex usually assigned
40:28at birth I should also point out that
40:33the class of a class of intersex is so
40:35rare to be virtually non-existent and it
40:38isn't reasonable to make standard policy
40:40on the basis of extreme exceptions and
40:43the reason for that is that there are
40:45Myriad's millions of extreme exceptions
40:48and it's not possible to constitute a
40:50collective society on the basis of
40:52legislation that's designed for for
40:56exceptions it can't be done by
40:57definition the laws - the law is
41:01fundamentally there to produce a
41:02collective agreement ok back definitions
41:10once again gender identity is each
41:13person's internal and individual
41:15experience of gender we've already said
41:17that a person's gender identity may be
41:19the same or the same as or different
41:23from their birth assigned sex
41:24well that's the theory gender expression
41:28is how a person publicly expresses or
41:32presents their gender well we've covered
41:34that there's another edition here a
41:36person's chosen name and pronoun are
41:38also common ways of expressing gender
41:40others perceive a person's gender
41:42through those attributes well this is
41:44also Ontario Human Rights Commission
41:46policy okay so this is the scenario I've
41:48been running through my head I can
41:51envision a student or a colleague
41:54insisting that I call them using
41:58gender-neutral pronouns ji zhe or zhe
42:02for you Americans G or sharor I think it
42:05is I'm not doing that I'm not doing that
42:09I think it's manipulative I and I don't
42:12I don't um
42:15I don't recognize another person's right
42:18to determine what pronouns I use to
42:21address them I won't do it now again I
42:26think that because of these new laws
42:28these in it that that that my decision
42:31might be illegal and maybe it's even a
42:34decision of hate but I'm not doing it I
42:37think that those gender-neutral pronouns
42:39are politically motivated I think
42:41they're connected to an entire
42:43underground apparatus of political
42:46motivations radical left political
42:47motivations and I think uttering those
42:50words makes me a tool of those
42:52motivations and I'm going to try to be a
42:55tool of my own motivations as clearly as
42:57I can articulate them and not the
42:58mouthpiece of some murderous ideology a
43:04person's gender identity definitions
43:06continued a person's gender identity is
43:08fundamentally different from and not
43:10related to their sexual orientation well
43:12that's rubbish fundamentally because if
43:14you ran a correlation analysis between
43:17gender identity and sexual orientation
43:19the correlation is going to be something
43:21like 0.95 which indicates an almost
43:24perfect correlation for the vast
43:26majority of people gender identity and
43:28sexual orientation are the same thing
43:30and so it is not fundamentally different
43:34from and not related to their sexual
43:36orientation that's just a misstatement
43:38fact perhaps for a minority of people
43:41sometimes their de social but that that
43:44doesn't mean that a gender identity is
43:47fundamentally different from and not
43:49related to sexual orientation it's a
43:51complete miss statement of fact if
43:53there's a correlation of if there's a
43:55correlation of any magnitude between two
43:58things then one is related to another
44:00and when the correlation is just about
44:02perfect well then they are fundamentally
44:04related so so that's another policy
44:07that's based actually on a lie a
44:09misstatement an untruth all right so
44:14trans or transgender is an umbrella term
44:17referring to people with diverse gender
44:19identities and expressions that differ
44:20from stereotypical gender norms it
44:23includes but is not limited to people
44:25who identify as transgender trans woman
44:28trans man transsexual cross dressers or
44:30gender non-conforming gender variant or
44:32genderqueer now here's what I think
44:35about these terms you see the people who
44:39use these terms want everyone to believe
44:41that they're for all the good things
44:44that they say they're for but I don't
44:47believe any of that I don't think that
44:51they're for good things at all I think
44:53that they use the pretense that they're
44:55for good things you know that they stand
44:57for good things to continue their
44:59nefarious activity and one of the most
45:02nefarious elements of their activity is
45:04the use of these ideological clubs you
45:07know when the club basically is here's
45:08the club right I mean the kind of club
45:11that you hit people with if there's a
45:13difference in outcome then it's a
45:16consequent of consequence of racism and
45:18bias and then if I point out the
45:21difference then I'm a good person
45:22so my little routine for wandering
45:26through the world making sure that I'm a
45:27good person unlike those other people
45:29who aren't good people that that need to
45:32be punished and perhaps jailed um I look
45:36for inequalities and wherever I find
45:38them I attribute them to racism and so
45:42that means I can spend my whole life
45:43doing nothing but mmm being on the side
45:46of goodbye ferreting out all the evil
45:48that resides in other people and not in
45:50me I don't trust people like that
45:52think that the continual generation of
45:54these terms is a consequence of the
45:58desire to make that game continue for as
46:00long as possible regardless of the
46:02consequences so that the people who hold
46:04those opinions can always be morally
46:06correct and have a whole set of enemies
46:08to go after and that's why the terms
46:10keep multiplying because every time
46:12Society moves to become more tolerant
46:14more liberal well then that interferes
46:17with the game because the game is well
46:18we have to find racist and horrible
46:20people and so the solution to that is
46:22well let's just continue to generate
46:24categories more and more categories to
46:26demonstrate how unequal people are well
46:29because the categories are infinitely
46:30divisible and we'll get to that later
46:32it's a game that never runs out and if
46:35you're a professional if you're someone
46:38whose profession is to be politically
46:40correct or to be a social justice
46:41warrior and that might be an academic
46:43especially a Marxist one and in all
46:45sorts of sub disciplines we'll also get
46:47to that later like sociology and Social
46:49Work and many of the Social Sciences
46:51apart from those two and and educational
46:55psychology that's another major offender
46:58and social psychology another major
46:59offender then your your publicly
47:03subsidized for your damn viewpoints and
47:06if you can continue to make the case
47:08that the world is full of racist racists
47:12and and people possessed by ethnic
47:14hatred you know persecuting the the poor
47:19minorities that your stick lasts forever
47:21and you can fully justify your you're
47:23subsidized position as well as being on
47:25the side of right and morality and
47:27making the world a better place what a
47:31good deal for everyone who is
47:32politically correct definition of
47:38discrimination and harassment now these
47:40are truly terrifying discrimination
47:43happens when a person experiences
47:44negative treatment or impact intentional
47:47or not because of their gender identity
47:48or gender expression okay and that could
47:51be age sex race etc okay think about
47:54that sentence discrimination happens
47:57when a person experiences negative
47:59treatment or impact okay so let's say
48:02negative impact well so what that means
48:04is that if I say something
48:06that makes you feel negative emotion or
48:08maybe even interferes with your
48:09happiness because those are actually
48:10separate things
48:12then you've experienced negative impact
48:15okay now that okay that's bad enough
48:18because it means that you get to decide
48:21when what I've said is not appropriate
48:23but the worst part of it and that's not
48:26so good because you could misunderstand
48:27me or maybe what I'm saying is right and
48:30you just don't like it or you know
48:32there's a whole variety of reasons you
48:33might get upset about what I say so the
48:37fact that you get upset about something
48:38that's negative impact but that doesn't
48:42necessarily mean that something bad is
48:44how I might even mean that something's
48:46good good has happened I don't think
48:47I've ever learned anything in my entire
48:49life that wasn't preceded by some kind
48:52of negative impact we always learn
48:53things the hard way
48:54but the worst part of it is the next
48:57phrase discrimination happens when a
48:59person experiences negative treatment or
49:01impact intentional or not okay so here
49:05think about this when it when when when
49:10you have little children and maybe one
49:13one runs into the other and knocks
49:16knocks even your child out you set your
49:20child up and the first thing you say is
49:21well Bobby didn't mean it and the reason
49:25you say that is because we've learned
49:27and this is painful this is this is a
49:29painful thing that human beings have
49:31learned it's at the base of our modern
49:33legal systems that intent matters
49:36it isn't consequences that you judge its
49:38intent if I accidentally run into you
49:41that's way different than if I run into
49:42you on purpose you know if I if I if if
49:46I kill you accidentally that's
49:48manslaughter at its worst if I kill you
49:51with intent that's that's that's the
49:53worst form of homicide we judge people
49:55on intent not on consequences and so
49:59this policy is designed to reverse that
50:01it's now possible that you can didn't
50:04discriminate against someone and violate
50:06the law and I think maybe even be
50:08persecuted for hate crimes because this
50:10is written in such a messy manner by
50:13doing something accidental intentional
50:15or not well who's going to judge
50:19that well you can imagine who's going to
50:21judge that the kind of people who would
50:23dare to judge that harassment harassment
50:28is a form of discrimination
50:29it can include sexually explicit or
50:33other inappropriate comments not defined
50:37questions jokes name-calling images
50:39email in social media it doesn't say
50:42what email and social media content just
50:45email in social media which is another
50:47indication of the appalling level of
50:49literacy behind these behind these
50:51statements transphobic homophobic or
50:53other bullying sexual advances touching
50:56another unwelcome and ongoing behavior
50:58that insults demeans harms or threatens
50:59a person in some way alright so the
51:04first thing you might note is that this
51:06has been written to cover the broadest
51:08possible range of possibilities that's
51:10the exact opposite of what good
51:11legislation does so if you combine these
51:15discrimination and harassment that the
51:18policies basically allow for people to
51:21like if I in and if I unintentionally
51:24negatively impact you with a joke then
51:28I'm harassing you and that's well on its
51:31way to being well it's a violation of
51:33the Ontario Human Rights Code it's an
51:35offence according to the Ontario Human
51:36Rights Commission and it's on the way to
51:38being a hate crime as far as I can tell
51:40with the modifications of federal
51:42legislation so and then to cap it all
51:46off they throw this and at the end of
51:48the sentence other unwelcome and ongoing
51:52behavior that insults demeans harms or
51:55threatens a person in some way okay so
51:59that's all pretty scary but then there's
52:02more of course and so this is the
52:05Ontario Human Rights Commission
52:06developing policies on organizational
52:09liability so listen to this
52:13organizations are liable for any
52:15discrimination and harassment that
52:17happens they are also liable for not
52:20accommodating in a trans person needs
52:22unless it would cause undue hardship the
52:24whole issue of undue hardship is a
52:25tricky one because I'm not exactly sure
52:28who adjudicates that in you know
52:32we'll get to that later they must deal
52:35with complaints take steps to prevent
52:36problems and provide a safe welcoming
52:38environment for trans people okay and
52:40and you know old people and and ethnic
52:43ethnically diverse people and you know
52:46differently gendered people and all of
52:47that so fine organizations are liable
52:51for any discrimination and harassment
52:53that happens okay well that puts a hell
52:55of an onus on the organization because
52:57it isn't exactly clear to me how
52:58organizations are going to monitor all
53:01of their people all of the time in the
53:04organizations what if they're using
53:05social media outside the organization so
53:08organizations are now liable for all of
53:10this so how are you going to police all
53:12that okay next more on liability from
53:20the Ontario Human Rights Code under
53:22Section 46.3 of the code a corporation
53:25trade union or occupational association
53:27unincorporated association or employers
53:29organization now listen to this will be
53:32held responsible for discrimination
53:35including acts or omissions committed by
53:38employees or agents in the course of
53:40their employment this is known as
53:41vicarious liability okay responsible
53:45parties violate the code now this is
53:47where it gets this is where it gets
53:48horrible I think where they directly or
53:51indirectly intentionally or
53:53unintentionally infringe the code or
53:55whether they otherwise authorize condone
53:57or adult behavior that is contrary to
53:58the code it is unacceptable to choose to
54:01remain unaware ignore or failed to
54:03address potential or actual human rights
54:05violations whether or not a complaint is
54:08made god you couldn't possibly design a
54:11broader definition of liability
54:16potential or actual human rights
54:18violations whether or not a complaint is
54:21made okay so does that that means that
54:24you have vicarious liability if you fail
54:32to address a potential human rights
54:34violation whether or not a complaint is
54:37made
54:41the only thing I can say about
54:44legislation that's written in this
54:45manner is that it seems to me to be
54:47consciously designed to get as many
54:49people in trouble as possible that's it
54:55it's designed to get as many people as
54:57possible in trouble at the same time so
55:03that brings us to the end of part 1 of
55:05this talk on political correctness in it
55:09I described the increasing fear that's
55:12spread by politically correct activism
55:15throughout large organizations including
55:18academic institutions like the
55:19University of Toronto I also discussed
55:23the increasing all pervasiveness of this
55:26viewpoint because it's not something
55:28that's localized anymore to academic
55:31institutions it's spread beyond them and
55:34is is characteristic of the
55:39preoccupations of a certain kind of
55:42administrator at a very large multitude
55:45of large organizations then I described
55:49in detail the Canadian Bill c16 which is
55:52an attempt to modify the Canadian Human
55:54Rights Code and the Criminal Code to
55:58make a whole variety of speech acts and
56:01the holding of certain opinions or they
56:03articulating of them criminal and maybe
56:07even criminal under the provisions of
56:09the hate of hate crime legislation in
56:13part two I'm going to give you more
56:16detailed analysis of the University of
56:17Toronto's attempts to transform its HR
56:20department into a politically correct
56:21organization I'm using the the goals of
56:27the University of Toronto as a
56:29cautionary tale about how such political
56:34maneuvers operate at a local level again
56:37on the principle that a good story about
56:39something local is a good story about
56:42something with general significance in
56:45part three I'm going to talk about what
56:47individuals can do about these sorts of
56:49things what you as a citizen how you as
56:52a citizen might arm yourself intellect
56:54so that you can articulate a stance
56:57against this kind of movement if you
56:59feel that that's in your best interests
57:03thanks for listening if you want to
57:06support endeavor such of these such as
57:09these please visit my patreon site which
57:11allows you to do so it's a monthly
57:14subscription site that helps me develop
57:17these videos and continue my work on
57:20them and who knows if things keep up the
57:23way they are maybe it will be my own
57:25only source of income after it becomes
57:28impossible for me to work at a
57:30university and say what I want to say if
57:32you want to provide such support just
57:35Google patreon Jordan Peterson thanks a
57:38lot and we'll talk to you very soon

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 2016/09/27: Part 1: Fear and the Law by Jordan B Peterson, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,761 words across 1,318 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.