YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16

2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16 — Transcript

by Jordan B Peterson · 10,048 words · 1,529 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00[Music]
0:04please good afternoon and welcome
0:07colleagues invited guests members of the
0:09general public who are following today's
0:12proceedings of the standing senate
0:13committee on legal and constitutional
0:15Affairs today we continue our
0:18consideration of Bill
0:19c16 an act to amend the Canadian Human
0:22Rights Act and the criminal code with uh
0:26this our last day of hearings on the
0:28bill we will move to Clause by Clause
0:30consideration
0:32tomorrow with us today for the first
0:34hour are Jordan B Peterson Professor
0:37psychology department of the University
0:39of Toronto and from the D Jared brown
0:42professional corporation uh D Jared
0:45Brown lead councel thank you gentlemen
0:48for being here you both have up to five
0:51minutes for opening statements and Mr
0:54Peterson I believe you're going to lead
0:55off Professor the floor is yours
1:01so I think the first thing I'd like to
1:03bring up is that it's not obvious when
1:06considering a matter of this sort what
1:08level of analysis is appropriate if
1:10you're reading any given document you
1:12can look at the words or the phrases or
1:14the sentences or the complete document
1:16or you can look at the broader context
1:18within which it is likely to be
1:20interpreted and when I first encountered
1:23Bill c16 and its surrounding policies it
1:26seemed to me that the appropriate level
1:27of analysis was to look at the context
1:30of interpretation surrounding the bill
1:32which is what I did when I went and uh
1:35scoured the Ontario Human Rights
1:37Commission web pages and examined its
1:40policies I did that because at that
1:42point the Department of Justice had
1:44clearly indicated on their website in a
1:46link that was later taken down that bill
1:48c16 would be interpreted in within the
1:51uh president's policy presidents already
1:54established by the Ontario Human Rights
1:56Commission so when I looked on the
1:59website I thought well there's broader
2:00issues at stake here and I tried to
2:02outline some of those broader issues in
2:05the initial you may or may not know I
2:07made some videos criticizing bill c16
2:10and it's and a number of its uh of the
2:13policies that's surrounding it and I
2:15think the most egregious elements of the
2:18policies are that it requires compelled
2:21speech the uh the Ontario Human Rights
2:25Commission explicitly states that
2:28refusing to refer to a person by their
2:30self identified name and proper personal
2:33pronoun which is the pronouns that I was
2:35objecting to uh can be can be
2:39interpreted as harassment and so that's
2:41an that's explicitly defined in the
2:43relevant policies um so I think that's
2:47appalling first of all because there
2:49hasn't been a piece of legislation that
2:50requires Canadians to utter a particular
2:53form of address that has particular
2:55ideological implications before and I
2:58think that it's a line that we shouldn't
2:59cross
3:01um then I think that the the definition
3:04of identity that's enshrined in the
3:06surrounding policies is um ill defined
3:11and poorly thought through and also
3:14incorrect um it's incorrect in that
3:17identity is not and will never be
3:20something that people Define
3:21subjectively because your identity is
3:23something that you actually have to act
3:25out in the world as a set of procedural
3:28tools which most people learn and I'm
3:30being technical about this between the
3:32ages of 2 and four it's a fundamental
3:35human reality it's well recognized by
3:37the relevant say developmental
3:39psychological authorities and so the
3:41idea that identity is something that you
3:43define purely subjectively is an idea
3:46without status as far as I'm concerned I
3:48also think it's unbelievably dangerous
3:51for us to move towards uh representing a
3:54social constructionist view of identity
3:57in our legal system the social constru
4:00view insists that human identity is
4:02nothing but a consequence of
4:03socialization which is which and and
4:07there's an inordinate amount of
4:09scientific evidence suggesting that that
4:11happens to not be the case and so the
4:14reason that this is being instantiated
4:16into law um is because the people who
4:19are promoting that sort of perspective
4:21or at least in part because the people
4:22who are promoting that sort of
4:23perspective know perfectly well that
4:25they've lost the battle completely on
4:26scientific grounds it's implicit in the
4:29polic IES of the ontar Human Rights
4:31Commission that sexual uh identity uh
4:35biological sex gender identity gender
4:38expression um sexual proclivity all very
4:42independently and that's simply not the
4:43case it's not the case scientifically
4:45it's not the case factually and it's
4:47certainly not something that should be
4:49increasingly taught to people in high
4:50schools elementary schools and junior
4:52high schools which it is and it is being
4:54taught I included this uh cartoon
4:58character that I find particularly
5:00reprehensible aimed obviously at it as
5:02it is at children somewhere around the
5:04age of seven that contains within it the
5:07implicit the implicit claims as a
5:09consequence of its graphic mode of
5:11expression that these elements of
5:13identity are first canonical and second
5:16independent and neither of those happen
5:18to be the case I think that uh the
5:22inclusion of gender expression in the
5:24bill is something extraordinarily
5:27peculiar given that gender expression is
5:29not a group and that according to the
5:31Ontario Human Rights Commission it deals
5:33with things as mundane as how behavior
5:36in outward appearance such as dress hair
5:39makeup body language and voice which now
5:42as far as I can tell uh open people to
5:45charges of hate crime under Bill c16 if
5:47they dare to criticize the manner of
5:49someone's dress which seems to me to be
5:51an entirely voluntary issue so um I
5:55think that the Ontario Human Rights
5:58commissions uh attitude towards
6:00vicarious liability is designed
6:03specifically to be punitive in that it
6:05makes employers responsible for um
6:09harassment or discrimination including
6:11the failure to use uh
6:13preferred preferred pronouns they have
6:16vicarious liability for that whether or
6:18not they know it's happening whether or
6:20not the harassment was and whether or
6:22not the harassment was intended or
6:25unintended and so I'll stop with that
6:27thank you uh Mr Brown
6:30I'm a litigator in Toronto I act in all
6:32manner of commercial and employment
6:34disputes I'm not an academic I live with
6:37my clients in the land of legal reality
6:39and how the law actually
6:40works about two years ago I began to see
6:43claims of discrimination included in
6:44every employment related Court claim my
6:47phone now Rings weekly with human rights
6:49tribunal matters it has become a reality
6:52for employers across
6:53Canada in August of last year I became
6:56aware of Dr Jordan Pearson He was
6:58discussing what he saw has a problematic
7:00law poorly
7:01written that's when I observed the
7:03oddest thing happening lawyers academic
7:06lawyers important people began to say
7:08that he had the legal stuff wrong
7:10nothing unusual about this bill and they
7:13also said you don't get to go to jail if
7:15you breach a human rights tribunal order
7:18what was happening is they weren't
7:19defending the law but downplaying its
7:22effects now as a practicing lawyer
7:25anytime a lawyer and particularly an
7:27academic says Look Away there's nothing
7:29to see here here it gets my antenna way
7:31up so I did some research which can be
7:34found in the brief that I filed in
7:35advance of today it sets out the path to
7:38prison on this I knew as a commercial
7:41litigator that anyone can end up in jail
7:43if you breach a tribunal order it is a
7:45simple civil contemp of court process
7:48people go to jail for this but what
7:50about the freedom of expression issue
7:52it's a foundational issue we all know
7:55that section 2B of the charter sets out
7:57that everybody has the fundamental
7:59freedoms of thought belief opinion and
8:02expression and we all know that the
8:04government has successfully restricted
8:05freedom of expression over the years but
8:07what if rather than restricting what you
8:09can't say the government actually
8:10mandated what you must
8:12say in other words instead of
8:14legislating that you cannot def Fame
8:16someone for instance the government says
8:18when you speak about a particular
8:19subject let's say gender you must use
8:22this government approved set of words
8:24and theories the American Juris Prudence
8:27clearly defines this as unconstitu U
8:30compelled speech in Canada the Supreme
8:32Court has annunciated the principle that
8:35anything that forces someone to express
8:37opinions that are not their own is a
8:39penalty that is totalitarian and as such
8:41alien to the tradition of free Nations
8:43like Canada now how does c16 get us to
8:46compelled speech the Minister of Justice
8:49has summarized bill c16 as the enactment
8:51amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to
8:53add gender identity and gender
8:54expression to the list of prohibited
8:56grounds of discrimination the Department
8:58of Justice website
9:00used to say that we must look to the
9:02Ontario Human Rights Commission policies
9:03for definitions on these
9:05terms Ontario's policies on gender
9:07identity and gender expression are set
9:09out in my brief they state that
9:11gender-based harassment can involve
9:12refusing to refer to a person by their
9:14self-identified name and proper personal
9:16pronoun refusing to refer to a
9:18transperson by their chosen name and a
9:20personal pronoun that matches their
9:21gender identity will likely be
9:23discrimination the law is otherwise
9:25unsettled as to whether someone can
9:27insist on any one gender neutral pronoun
9:30in particular if the harasser didn't
9:32know or didn't intend to harass it's
9:33still harassment now why is this
9:35important well in Ontario the Human
9:37Rights Commission is a policy
9:38development creature of the legislature
9:40it creates the policies which interpret
9:42the code but what is most important the
9:45tribunal must follow these policies it
9:47is bound by them so the commission
9:49creates the law on pronouns in Ontario
9:52the policies on pronouns were introduced
9:54into the legal framework after the law
9:56had left the legislature ferally the
9:58same process would will be followed as
9:59the Department of Justice had said so a
10:01similar guideline will be developed as
10:04with the Ontario policies federal
10:06guidelines must be followed by the
10:07federal tribunal the guidelines will
10:09mandate pronouns this will happen after
10:11the bill leaves the Senate mandating use
10:14of pronouns requires one to use words
10:15that are not their own which imply a
10:17belief in or an agreement with a certain
10:19theory on gender if you try to disavow
10:21that theory you can be brought before
10:23the Human Rights Commission for
10:25misgendering or potentially find
10:26yourself guilty of a hate crime to sum
10:29up on the subject agenda we're going to
10:30have government mandated speech now in
10:33aining on the constitutionality of the
10:34proposed Bill the Department of Justice
10:37set on its website look there's a
10:38variation of this bill that already
10:39exists in most of the
10:41provinces I don't believe that's a
10:43robust argument in favor of
10:46constitutionality I would refer you to
10:48the comments of the now Chief Justice
10:49mcaughan of the Supreme Court in the
10:51decision of Taylor it's in my brief the
10:53chilling effect of leaving over Brad
10:55provisions on the books cannot be
10:57ignored while the chilling effect of
10:58human rights legislation is likely to be
11:01less significant than that of a criminal
11:02prohibition the vagueness of the law
11:04means it may well deter more conduct
11:06than can legitimately be targeted as a
11:08lawyer on the ground I worry about
11:10poorly drafted a poorly drafted law and
11:12its impact on my clients as a Canadian I
11:15worry about Parliament tacitly
11:16authorizing compelled speech the brief I
11:19provided to the committee contains a
11:21comprehensive legal opinion that I
11:22published back in December on c16
11:25there's a table that shows how the
11:27federal human rights regime mirrors the
11:28Ontario system in terms of enforcement
11:31of policies and guidelines I have to
11:32wrap up sir and finally it includes the
11:34case law that underpins the opinion
11:37thank you okay thank you both and we'll
11:40begin the questions beginning with the
11:42deputy chair Senator Baker thank you
11:45thank you Mr chairman and thank you to
11:46the witnesses for their uh
11:50presentation um as the witnesses know
11:55the nine provinces in
11:57Canada have uh
12:00uh the um the provision in their
12:04laws uh including
12:07Ontario and also the words expression as
12:10I recall appears in four or five
12:13provinces um so what you are arguing is
12:18against what we already have in law your
12:23reference to the criminality to the
12:27sections of the criminal code
12:30at our last meeting Senator zel
12:32correctly pointed
12:34out that sections 318 and
12:38319 starts off by
12:41genocide Under The Heading
12:44genocide the next heading is uh public
12:48incitement likely to lead to a breach of
12:51the peace and you know what a breach of
12:54the peace is Mr
12:56Brown willful promotion of hate
13:01these things are and then there are
13:04defenses listed as you know in that
13:06criminal code provision there's several
13:08defense if you honestly believe in what
13:10you said is if if you you know the the
13:13defenses are extensive in the criminal
13:15code they've worked well for
13:19Canada
13:21so what do you have to say about the
13:24facts of what's presently in the
13:26criminal code and your reflection that
13:30somehow uh the genocide heading the
13:34heading on public incitement on willful
13:37promotion of
13:39hatred somehow that these Provisions
13:41should not be included under those
13:44headings I think I have to be clear my
13:46presentation relates to the amendment of
13:47The Human Rights Code or the proposed
13:49amendment and that is in fact how uh one
13:52like Dr Peterson May in fact find
13:54themselves on the wrong side of jail and
13:57so if you if you've reviewed the uh the
13:59publication in the opinion I say that uh
14:02simply by breaching the uh proposed
14:06amendment to the uh to the Human Rights
14:09Act um and particularly with somebody
14:12who is deliberately doing so for
14:14instance somebody was saying I'm not
14:16going to use those words that person if
14:19they are dragged before the tribunal the
14:22Ontario tribunal or the federal tribunal
14:24I've indicated to you already that the
14:25Department of Justice has said they're
14:27going to pass the same guideline on
14:30pronouns and so what I'm suggesting to
14:33you is that if somebody says I'm not
14:35going to use those words are brought
14:37before the tribunal the federal tribunal
14:40and the tribunal then delivers an order
14:43for a payment of a fine and
14:45alternatively a non-monetary remedy I.E
14:48cease and desist order uh an order to do
14:51something to compel them to do something
14:54and that person who's brought before the
14:55tribunal says I'm not doing that they
14:57will find themselves in contempt of
14:59court and prison is the likely uh uh
15:03outcome of that process until they Purge
15:05the contempt that's what I'm suggesting
15:07I'm not suggesting to you that uh that
15:10the uh amendments to the criminal code
15:13um well I'm I'm not advocating genocide
15:16I guess let's just say that and my my
15:18presentation here is is restricted to
15:20what I see as the pronoun policy issue
15:22in the compelled speech issue so it
15:24covers the provincial legislation that
15:26you just strongly disagree with that
15:28we've had in place
15:29in the provinces for decades in some
15:31cases it is the policies that were
15:33enacted after it left the legislature
15:35and which will be enacted after this
15:37bill leaves this uh this committee I
15:40would also like to add to that the fact
15:42that once I made the video stating that
15:45I wouldn't use the Z and Zur pronouns
15:48for example which I regard as part of an
15:51ideological linguistic Vanguard the
15:54university lawyers after carefully
15:56considering what I said sent me two
15:57letters to ceas and IST in my public
15:59utterances because they believed that
16:01Not only was I violating the
16:02University's standards of conduct but
16:04that I was also violating the relevant
16:06provisions of the Ontario Human Rights
16:08Commission therefore as far as I could
16:10tell vindicating the statement that I
16:12made when I made the video to begin with
16:14which was that the act of making the
16:16video itself was probably already
16:18illegal and they didn't do that lightly
16:21under provincial law yes okay Senator
16:25PL uh thank you chair and uh thank you
16:28you gentlemen both of you for being here
16:31um I have two questions one for Dr
16:34Peterson uh right at the GetGo and then
16:37one for the two of you hopefully the
16:40chair will indulge me uh deliberations
16:45of this bill and during deliberations of
16:47this bill we keep hearing the term
16:49respect thrown
16:51around respect is indeed critical in
16:54debates of legislation as sensitive of
16:57as this and there are a lot of people
16:58here who need to be reminded that
17:01respect works both ways including people
17:03at this committee uh Dr Baker has or
17:07Senator baker has already referred to
17:09comments as genocide I don't think
17:11anybody here is promoting genocide
17:14however Dr Peterson can you comment on
17:17the notion of respect where some of your
17:19critics say why can you not just respect
17:23your students just use the gender
17:25neutral pronouns how do you respond to
17:28that
17:29well first of all I'd have to be
17:30convinced that doing so would do more
17:32good than harm and I don't believe that
17:34and I I think I'm actually in a
17:35reasonable position to to to justify my
17:39claim I think that the danger that's
17:41intrinsic to the law far outweighs
17:43whatever potential benefit it might
17:45produce especially given that there's no
17:47hard evidence whatsoever for any benefit
17:50I I would also like to point out that
17:51the people who are promoting this
17:53legislation claim to be acting on the
17:55behalf behalf say of the transgendered
17:57Community but they weren't Not Elected
18:00nor appointed to act as such
18:01representatives and are doing it on
18:03their own say so I've received many
18:04letters at least 30 now from
18:06transgendered individuals indicating
18:08that the they are not in accordance with
18:12the the claims of these so-called
18:13representatives to be representing or
18:15with the intent of the legislation which
18:17has actually made them more visible
18:19rather than less visible which is and
18:21the less visible is what they had
18:22preferred with regards to respect is
18:25that you don't meet people generally
18:27speaking in a Mutual display of respect
18:30you generally meet people in a mutual
18:33display of alert neutrality which is the
18:36appropriate way to begin an interaction
18:38with someone because respect is
18:39something that you earn as a consequence
18:42of reciprocal interactions with with
18:45that are dependent on something like
18:46reputation which is also a consequence
18:48of repeated interactions and so the
18:50notion that addressing someone by their
18:54um self-defined self-identity is
18:56necessarily an indication of basic human
18:58and respect for them I think is a
19:00entirely spous argument especially given
19:02that there's no evidence that moving the
19:05language in a compelled manner in this
19:06direction is going to have any
19:08beneficial effect we're supposed to
19:10assume that just because hypothetically
19:12the intent is positive that the outcome
19:14will be positive and any social
19:16scientist worth his or her salt knows
19:19perfectly well that that's rarely the
19:21case so Dr Brown uh you've talked about
19:26uh non-monetary orders uh that could
19:28include include sanctions like orders to
19:30undertake sensitivity and anti-bias
19:33training I would like uh either one or
19:36both of you to comment on uh whether you
19:38could explain why an individual may have
19:40a strong objection to undertaking such a
19:44training and Mr Brown could you let the
19:46committee know how serious the sanction
19:48could be and of course you already did
19:49on that uh if you refuse to undertake
19:52such an order uh and specifically at the
19:54federal level but what would what would
19:56why would people have an objection to
19:57taking such training I think I'm going
19:59to let Dr Peterson answer why he or
20:01someone like him might have an an
20:02objection to undertaking that type of
20:04training and then I'll deal obviously
20:06once again with the severity of that
20:08decision if it gets before the
20:10tribunal well I have a profound
20:12objection to to undergoing such training
20:14in fact I would flatly refuse under all
20:17conditions to undergo it and the reason
20:19there's multiple reasons for that the
20:21first reason is that the science
20:23surrounding the uh the the so-called
20:26charge of implicit bias that's asso with
20:29perception is by no means settled in in
20:32to such a degree that to one of the
20:34three people who designed the most
20:36commonly used measure which is the
20:38implicit association test has detached
20:40himself from the other two uh
20:42researchers on the grounds that the use
20:44of the test has become has far
20:47transcended its scientific validity and
20:49reliability it's nowhere near valid or
20:51reliable enough to be used in the manner
20:53that it's been using and even the more
20:55uh Pro IAT researchers who developed the
20:58the test have admitted to that publicly
21:00even though they haven't stressed it
21:01nearly to the degree they should have so
21:03first of all the science is is not
21:05settled and is being used absolutely
21:08inappropriately and I can say that as a
21:10clinician because I know the and as a
21:12psychometrician I know the criteria for
21:14using a test for essentially diagnostic
21:16purposes and the IAT doesn't even come
21:18close to what's necessary then the next
21:20issue is well where's the evidence that
21:23un that anti- unconscious bias training
21:26works there's no evidence and what
21:27little evidence is suggests that it
21:29actually has the opposite effect because
21:31people don't like being brought in front
21:33of a re-education committee and having
21:35their fundamental perceptions you see
21:37their perceptions not even their
21:39thoughts but their perceptions
21:40themselves altered by Collective Fiat
21:43it's an unbelievable there sir we have a
21:46very engaged committee concise questions
21:48and concise responses with be helpful
21:50Senator
21:53Pratt thank you for being here uh I want
21:55to quote uh briefly from a document from
21:58the anterior Human Rights Commission
22:01says some people may not know how to
22:03determine what pronoun to use others may
22:05feel uncomfortable using gender neutral
22:07pronouns generally when in doubt ask a
22:09person how they wish to be addressed use
22:11they if you don't know which pronoun to
22:13is preferred simply referring to their
22:15person by their chosen name is always a
22:18respectful approach so you can use a
22:21pronoun you can choose you can use their
22:23chosen name so if someone chooses to
22:26change his name from Paul to Peter
22:30surely you would use Peter because it's
22:32a matter of simple politeness and and
22:34respect if same person's person chooses
22:37to CH change her name from Paul to Paula
22:40won I won't use use the name Paula
22:43simply as a matter of
22:45respect what's the difference here well
22:47I guess the issue speak of the legal
22:50issue there is that you're now
22:51introducing the full force of the law
22:52behind the requirement to use and I'm
22:55dealing obviously with with respect to
22:56the pronoun issue in terms of not
22:58addressing Somebody by their by their
23:00legally registered name for instance um
23:03uh I don't think that's where we're
23:05running into trouble here I think the
23:07issue becomes that if you don't address
23:09Somebody by the uh the pronoun that they
23:12self-identify by as I've read out to you
23:14the fact that the full force of the law
23:16will be behind uh that person um that
23:20that's what I I'm uh finding is TR
23:22troubling in the legislation but the
23:24Ontario Human Rights Commission gives
23:27per people the alter Al native not to
23:29use pronouns and use the person's chosen
23:32name which is always a respectful
23:34approach so pronouns are not necessary
23:37or not mandatory you can always choose
23:39the person's chosen name as a respectful
23:42approach and therefore I argue I I'm not
23:45aware that anybody that there is a um a
23:49piece of legislation that compels you to
23:51use my proper name in other words um
23:55once again it's the fact that the full
23:56force of the law will be behind find it
23:59when we're dealing with the the group
24:00being identified in the legislation and
24:03so for instance if I were not to call
24:04you by your chosen name I'm not sure
24:06you'd enjoy the full force of the law
24:08behind you uh um as a result of that and
24:12that's what I'm suggesting to you is the
24:13difference here I'm just arguing sir
24:14that you always base whatever you say on
24:17what the Ontario Human Rights Commission
24:19is saying and I'm quoting from the
24:20Ontario Human Rights Commission document
24:23they're saying we're not mandate
24:25mandating pronouns you can always use
24:28the person's chosen name as a respectful
24:30approach I respectfully disagree but
24:32then well I would say then that's
24:35actually an indication of just exactly
24:36how poorly the policy documents are
24:38written because I can quote this one
24:41which which is also from the Ontario
24:42Human Rights Commission website that
24:44says and I quote refu refusing to refer
24:47to a person by their self-identified
24:48name and proper personal uh proper
24:52personal pronoun count constitutes
24:54gender-based harassment and so if there
24:57if the policies were written in a
24:58coherent Manner and there wasn't
24:59internal contradictions then your
25:01statement would be a reasonable
25:02objection but since it's not written
25:04that way and I do believe firmly that
25:06that's a testament to the to the degree
25:08to which it's a poorly written set of
25:10policies is that it's full of internal
25:12contradictions and that'll be worked out
25:14very painfully within the confines of
25:16people's private lives thank you sir
25:20thank you Senator
25:22batters thanks very much both of you for
25:24being here um first of all uh Dr
25:26Peterson I want to go back to to this
25:28issue of personal pronouns and if you
25:30could please tell our committee more
25:31about this issue it's something that I
25:33was not at all familiar with prior to
25:35this bill um um being introduced and in
25:39particular about the gender neutral
25:41pronouns and your experience in pushing
25:43back against being forced to use those
25:45gender neutral Pro gender neutral
25:48pronouns well I don't think the people
25:50who initiated this legislation ever
25:52expected that there would be an absolute
25:54explosion of of identities first of all
25:57and also of so-called personal pronouns
26:00as there has been I think Facebook now
26:02recognizes something like 71 separate
26:04gender identity categories Each of which
26:07in principle is associated with its own
26:09set of pronouns and so it's become well
26:11linguistically un it's it's become a
26:13parody essentially it's become
26:15linguistically unmanageable and it's
26:17also the case that words can't be
26:19introduced into The Language by Fiat I
26:21don't I I can't even think of a time
26:23when that's actually worked we're not
26:24exactly sure how words enter the common
26:26parlament but it's certainly not that
26:28way and so the the the legislation
26:32devolves into a kind of of of absurdity
26:34as far as I can tell I mean one of the
26:36people that I discussed this with
26:38claimed that the way that you kept track
26:40of someone's personal pronouns was to
26:42use your cell phone as an adjunct to
26:44your communication and I mean that's you
26:48wouldn't say anything like that if you
26:49knew anything
26:51about common human nature let's say and
26:54the manner in which people communicate
26:55with one another okay so the types of
26:57pronouns you're talking about just so
26:59everyone's clear because I don't think
27:00these are Comm common parlaments um Z
27:03and Zur and what other sorts of gender
27:05neutral pronouns are we discussing here
27:07well I have a very bad memory for that
27:09sort of thing but if you're interested
27:11in it you can find lists of them very
27:13rapidly on the web and and they've been
27:15produced by I think they've been
27:17produced by people whose essential
27:20desire is to gain linguistic
27:24control that's that's that's as simple
27:26as I can put it is to gain linguistic
27:27control contr but they're not used
27:30popularly and and that seems to me to be
27:34it's a real problem as a consequence
27:35that you make failure to make their use
27:37something that that could carry a
27:39criminal penalty so I just don't
27:42understand that and and I don't
27:43understand how the government can
27:45justify imposing a criminal penalty on
27:47the use of words that no one either
27:49knows or uses it it just seems
27:52Preposterous to me but there it is could
27:55you please also tell us a little bit
27:56more about the your personal experience
27:59and pushing back against this and I mean
28:01many are familiar with your story but uh
28:03not everyone so I just wanted to give
28:04you a little well I made a video
28:06actually I made three videos but we'll
28:08just talk about one of them I I made one
28:11criticizing bill c16 for the reasons
28:13that I already described because I went
28:14and read the policies and I they made my
28:16hair stand on and the surrounding
28:18policies and uh so I made a video
28:21stating essentially that and detailed
28:23out my reasons and um you know I've been
28:26following the the bad of let's say
28:29ideologies on campus for a very long
28:31period of time and I I suppose I have
28:32some expertise in that and there's a
28:35there's an ideological war that's
28:37ripping the campuses apart and it's
28:39essentially between a ideological
28:42variant that's rooted in what's come to
28:44be known as postmodernism with kind of a
28:46neo-marxist base and and modern
28:51modernism I would say that that's
28:53accounting for all the turmoil on the
28:54campuses and I see this as an extension
28:56of this campus turmoil into the broader
28:58world and and I really believe that is
29:00the proper level of analysis I truly
29:02believe that and so I said that I
29:05believe that this is the a Vanguard
29:08issue in a kind of ideological war and
29:10that I'm not going to participate on the
29:12side of the people whose whose
29:14ideological stance I find reprehensible
29:16unforgivable and reprehensible
29:18especially the Marxist element of it and
29:21so I announced that I wasn't going to
29:22use these words because I don't believe
29:24that they're instantiated to protect
29:26anyone's rights I believe they're that
29:28the the the ideologues who are pushing
29:30this movement are using unsuspecting and
29:33sometimes complicit members of the
29:34so-called transgender Community to push
29:37their ideological Vanguard forward and I
29:39firmly believe that so I'm not
29:42participating in that and the fact that
29:44it's potentially illegal for me not to
29:46participate in that is something that I
29:48regard as I think that's absolutely
29:50Dreadful it it's it make it puts a
29:52shudder in my heart as a Canadian that
29:54we could even possibly be in a situation
29:56like that you know if if the if the
29:59identity claims that are instantiated in
30:01this leg in the policiy surrounding this
30:03legislation are applied it's going to be
30:05hell for the psychiatrists excuse my
30:07language it's going to be very difficult
30:08for the biologists and the psychiatrists
30:11next and I think we'll see that
30:13happening very soon thank you Senator
30:17gold thank you and thank you for being
30:19here
30:21um uh I I've never been a practicing
30:24lawyer I was a constitutional law
30:26professor uh and I'm a free speech guy
30:30um so I appreciate the importance of the
30:34issues that are being
30:36raised I think respectfully they were
30:38answered Free Speech issues were
30:40answered quite compellingly by my former
30:42colleague Brenda Cosman and testimony
30:44before this committee but I I wanted to
30:47make three points
30:49um Mr Peterson and there are questions
30:51sort of buried in these points
30:53um I think I heard you say that you
30:56thought that the harm of to this
30:58legislation outweighs the good but but
31:01but there is the trans Community suffers
31:03harm regularly when they're
31:04discriminated against and whatever else
31:08one might say and worry about human
31:11rights tribunals and and the
31:14like this bill addresses and would take
31:18a major step forward towards reducing
31:20harm uh that are particularly vulnerable
31:22Community uh
31:25experiences second let's see if we could
31:27zero in on where we might agree that
31:31um there is nothing in the law that
31:35criminalizes or creates a an offense to
31:39criticize the notion that identity is a
31:42social construct which you do to
31:44criticize the way in which words come
31:46into the language though modern Hebrew
31:48is an example of words coming in by Fiat
31:50and the academy Franz does it as well of
31:52course Shakespeare gave us so much of
31:54our language but there's nothing in this
31:56bill that stands in the way of you
31:59taking a principal position against all
32:01aspects of this including your
32:03criticisms of the activists um the issue
32:06is the pronoun and and unless I'm
32:09reading it
32:10wrong as Senator Pratt pointed out the
32:14Ontario Human Rights Commission policy
32:17does not say that refusing to use a
32:20person's self-identified name or
32:24personal pronoun does constitute gender
32:28harassment I may I may be wrong but I
32:30believe it said it could and I think
32:32that's a real difference if if I Turn to
32:34You and say look please call me they
32:38because that's how I see myself now
32:41because it's hurtful for you to call me
32:44sir um or Miss whatever whatever it
32:47would be uh but you refuse I say well
32:51okay if you're uncomfortable with that
32:53because you're not comfortable with that
32:55call me Mark and you refuse were you to
32:59continue to call me by the name that I'm
33:02telling you is hurtful to
33:06me is that not in fact something
33:13that is that not something that that the
33:16law can properly address this is you are
33:20knowingly hurting me uh and and in that
33:24respect um our courts ultimately I think
33:29are capable of striking a proper balance
33:31between people who slip up or who for
33:33whatever reasons just can't get the
33:35words out of their mouth and those that
33:37persist in intentionally causing to
33:40respond would you agree with my
33:42characterization of the a free speech as
33:45it applies to these issues let me jump
33:47in just on the legal point it uh after
33:50Dr Peterson posted his videos and after
33:53he rose to the public Consciousness um
33:55the antario Human Rights Commission
33:57deemed it fit to release a new policy
34:00document called questions and answers
34:01about gender identity and pronouns and
34:03in so doing they said that refusing to
34:06refer to a transperson by their chosen
34:07name and and a personal pronoun that
34:09matches their gender identity or
34:11purposely misgendering will likely be
34:14discrimination so I think it's a little
34:16bit more certain than what you may have
34:18uh uh indicated in your comment but I'll
34:20allow Dr um uh and once again that was
34:22that policy was was put out after um Dr
34:27Peterson um began to speak on the issue
34:29and so I think that's very telling that
34:31it was a a a response if you will to
34:33this this um this issue that Dr Peterson
34:35raised I'm gon allow obviously Dr
34:37Peterson to go ahead with the other
34:39element of your question very briefly
34:40sir well so I I would say that the very
34:43idea that calling someone uh a term that
34:47they didn't choose causes them such
34:49irreparable harm that legal remedy
34:52should be sought um rather than
34:55regarding it as a form of impoliteness
34:56that legal remedies should should be
34:58sought including potential violation of
35:01the hate speech codes is an indication
35:03of just How Deeply the culture of
35:05victimization has sunk into our
35:08society okay leave it there senator
35:13from
35:14um same topic uh Mr Brown uh when uh the
35:19Minister of Justice was before this
35:20committee um she said the following
35:24there is nothing within bill c16 that
35:27would comp compel somebody to have to
35:29call somebody by the pronoun he or she
35:32or otherwise can you comment on her
35:37position I'd agree with that there is
35:38nothing in in the bill but the problem
35:41is that in the the government of Canada
35:43Department of Justice website um they uh
35:47in their questions and answers section
35:49of that website which was pulled down in
35:50December it's at toab five of my brief
35:53it it makes very clear that the
35:54definitions of the terms gender identity
35:56and gender expression of our already
35:57been given by the Ontario Human Rights
35:59Commission the commission has provided
36:01helpful discussion and examples that can
36:03offer good practical Guidance the
36:05Canadian Human Rights Commission will
36:06provide similar guidance on the meaning
36:08of these terms in the Canadian Human
36:10Rights act now I take that to be a state
36:12legislative intent and I'll agree with
36:14you that the that the bill itself on its
36:15face does not seem to imply any manner
36:17of compelled speech but when we're tying
36:18it so deliberately and with this
36:20expectation that's where I think you get
36:22into uh into some
36:23trouble and CH may I ask one more um
36:27again Mr Brown you you spoke about the
36:29chilling effects of overly broad
36:31legislation I'm wondering if you
36:33consider the terms gender identity and
36:35gender expression to be equally broad or
36:38do you consider one broader than the
36:41other um
36:44it I think they are overly broad
36:46definitions and uh and I think the only
36:49thing I can offer as a lawyer and a
36:51litigator is that um the courts don't
36:54like over broad terms and and I would
36:56refer you to the decision of of London
36:59bison of the Berta court of appeal where
37:02in that case the court of appeal says
37:03the objective of statutory
37:05interpretation is to to discern the
37:07legislative intent from the language of
37:09the legislation if possible and to give
37:11effect to such intent this objetive
37:13becomes difficult to attain where there
37:15is conflict imprecision or a lack of
37:18clarity in the legislation of
37:20particularly of particular concern in
37:22the area of human rights law is that a
37:23lack of clarity will cast a chill on the
37:26exercise on the of the fundamental
37:27freedoms such as freedom of expression
37:29and religion and so um while I
37:32personally believe that the that the
37:33terms are not properly or not clearly
37:35defined and and somewhat ambiguous the
37:38courts uh don't like that type of
37:40legislation
37:41either just to add two things um with
37:45regards to the chill it's already the
37:47case and I've seen this among my own
37:48students when they're teaching
37:50personality which is what I teach which
37:51also involves uh assessment of gender
37:54differences between men and women that
37:56the City now is for the advanced PhD
37:59students to avoid any such discussions
38:01in their classrooms because the
38:02potential cost of transgressing against
38:05a an unknown Norm let's say is so high
38:08that it's just easier to teach other
38:09things and so I've seen that clearly and
38:12with multiple people and I would also
38:14say that it's no trivial matter that the
38:17Department of Justice is link to the
38:20Ontario Human Rights Commission and
38:21their statements about how this
38:23legislation was going to be interpreted
38:24mysteriously disappeared in the middle
38:26of December of all the things that have
38:28happened to me happened in relationship
38:30to this and that I've been studying I
38:32think that was the most chilling it's
38:34like because it was the it was the what
38:36would you say it was the smoking pistol
38:38right because the issue is what's the
38:40right level of analysis are you just
38:41supposed to look at the legislation well
38:43since the justice department said no
38:46you're supposed to look at the
38:47surrounding policies well that's what I
38:49did and that's what I based my case on
38:50and then all of a sudden the link to
38:52those the link tying those two things
38:54together just vanished and people had to
38:56go into the internet AR archives to to
38:59to fish it back out so that it could
39:01remain part of the public record I think
39:03that's absolutely
39:06scandalous thank you Senator
39:10amadar thank you chair and thank you
39:12both of you for being here um I was
39:15trying to take notes but I think I got
39:17this right Mr Peterson that you talked
39:19about this bill as being an expression
39:22of Vanguard of ideology am I am I right
39:26in thinking in in well I was thinking
39:28more about the policies that surrounded
39:30it but but yes yeah so I'm trying to
39:33square what you as a party of one are
39:36saying with uh published documents from
39:40the Canadian Psychological Association
39:42the American Psychological Association
39:44the Canadian Medical Association the
39:47American Psychiatric association the
39:49Canadian Psychiatric association and the
39:52United Nation human rights uh experts so
39:56these are all you know these are not
39:58parties of one they are associated they
40:01are all I imagine lots of psychologists
40:03are members of the Canadian psychology
40:06Association and the Canadian
40:07psychiatrist so how are we to sare what
40:10you're saying which is your opinion uh
40:14which you are absolutely entitled to
40:16with what everyone is saying plus the
40:18feelings and testimonies of the people
40:22who have suffered uh over 30 years
40:25who've been taking issues to
40:28people who who who we've listened to so
40:30how are we descri this okay well with
40:32regards to your second point if the
40:34people that you're listening to aren't
40:36randomly selected from a population then
40:38their opinions are worthless from the
40:40perspective of of testimony because you
40:42don't know if you're dealing with a
40:43biased sample and that's a big problem
40:45with the public consultation process
40:47that underlied this bill and and you can
40:49not appreciate that if you'd like but
40:51it's standard practice in any in any
40:53polling institution or any body that's
40:56attempting to extract a genuine opinion
40:58out of a so-call community of people and
41:00if that isn't followed then you can't
41:02tell if the information that you're that
41:04you're receiving is bias and this with
41:06regards to your first point what exactly
41:08are all those people who aren't thinking
41:10the same way as me saying you said that
41:12there's a bunch of them and a bunch of
41:13groups but you never said what they're
41:16saying precisely well I'm I think our
41:19chair would rule me out of four if I
41:21proed no you're fine to read out what
41:23they're all saying but in general they
41:26say they oppose discrimination and
41:28harassment because of gender identity
41:30and gender expression and then there's
41:32three pages which I can share with you I
41:34oppose discrimination against gender
41:37identity and gender expression that's
41:38not the point the point is the specifics
41:41of the legislation that surrounds it and
41:43the insistence that people will have to
41:45be have to use compelled speech that's
41:47what I'm objecting to I've dealt with
41:49all sorts of people in my life very
41:52people who don't fit in in all sorts of
41:54different ways I'm not a discriminatory
41:55person there's 5 00 hours of my teaching
41:58to my classrooms on tape on YouTube and
42:01nobody's found a smoking pistol I'm not
42:03a discriminatory individual but I think
42:05this legislation is reprehensible and I
42:07do not believe for a moment that it will
42:09do what it intends to do I also don't
42:11think that my opinion deviates
42:13substantially from the bodies that
42:15you're describing because you haven't
42:16provided any evidence that they say
42:18anything other than discrimination is a
42:19bad thing and I think that unreasonable
42:22discrimination is a bad thing and it's
42:24unreasonable when people are judged for
42:25any reason other than the specific
42:28competence that they bring to say a
42:30given position it's not in anyone's best
42:32interest that that occurs but I don't
42:34think that you've demonstrated in the
42:36least that the opinions that I'm putting
42:37forward are exist in opposition to the
42:40standard practices say of my particular
42:43discipline
42:45so could you may I follow could you
42:48repeat one more time your response to
42:50Senator golden Pratt that the Ontario
42:53Human Rights Commission has provided
42:55what I would say reasonable Alternatives
42:58uh to your your uh objection to using
43:03pronouns well I I think it's been made
43:05clear in the in the presentation so far
43:07is that it depends on which part of the
43:09Ontario Human Rights commission's
43:10policies you read and that's a big
43:12problem I mean that's one of the reasons
43:15I criticized this to begin with was
43:17because when I went through the policies
43:19I could see that they're absolutely
43:21incoherent so for example here let me
43:23give you another example so there's an
43:25insistence in the Ontario Human Rights
43:26Commission that that sexual preference
43:28is an immutable phenomena which
43:31indicates at least in principle that
43:32it's biologically grounded but on the
43:34same by the same token in exactly the
43:37same policies they presume that sexual
43:39identity gender identity and gender
43:41expression are entirely independent it's
43:42like sorry guys you can't have both of
43:45those because one's a and one's not a
43:48and you can't put those together and
43:50like there's there's endless numbers of
43:53places in the policy uh surround
43:56surrounding Bill C 16 that are
43:57characterized by that kind of logical
43:59incoherency and I mean what's it going
44:01to do to people who are transgender who
44:03are making the claim that they were say
44:05born that way at Birth which is a strong
44:07claim that's a biological claim it
44:10indicates that there's a direct causal
44:12connection between some biological
44:14phenomena and the expression of a
44:16particular identity it's actually the
44:18strongest defense that people who have
44:19let's call them non-standard sexual
44:21identities or gender identities have to
44:24defend their claims I have to wrap it up
44:25there and move on to
44:30Senator thank you very much Mr chair
44:33I'll leave the time for our guests to uh
44:37put in their translation devices thank
44:39you very much for being
44:41here my question is for Mr Peterson do
44:45you have the interpretation now
44:49sir
44:51so I'm still trying to orient myself a
44:54little bit in this bill I'm a little bit
44:55lost in the arguments
44:58in the for and against but some
45:00arguments really struck me because some
45:03people said that without this
45:06bill there might be suicides people
45:09would become
45:13depressed transgender people of
45:20course and it seems to me that this is
45:23almost an extreme position that without
45:26this bill there would be an explosion of
45:27suicides and depression so I'd like to
45:29ask you a question as a professor now
45:31you work in the the the social sciences
45:34you study human
45:36behavior are there studies or
45:42statistics about the
45:44consequences that this bill would have
45:46on those
45:48people is this bill would this bill save
45:51as many lives and help as many people as
45:53it
45:54says well in in princi principle we
45:57would have that information if the
46:00policies that have already been
46:01introduced by the provincial governments
46:02were assessed properly but as far as I
46:05know there's been no no studies
46:07indicating that the introduction of this
46:09legislation specifically has done
46:11anything to modify the the unfortunate
46:13rates of of suicide depression anxiety
46:16and so forth that are that are
46:18characteristic well you could say often
46:20of marginalized groups but that's a bit
46:22of an overstatement so no I don't that
46:25that that was part of my original claim
46:27is that there's no evidence that this
46:28sort of um legal redress let's say is
46:31going to produce any of the positive
46:32consequences that are intended and I do
46:35believe that by making the issue let's
46:38say painfully visible that's one way of
46:40thinking about it it's actually had the
46:42opposite effect and it's you know it's
46:44it's it's very very common and this is
46:46something that's that's well known in in
46:49the relevant social sciences that just
46:51because you intend something to happen
46:53when you make a large scale
46:54transformation doesn't indicate in any
46:57manner that that's going to be the
46:58outcome I mean it would be lovely if
47:00things were that simple and I mean the
47:02best social scientists always insist
47:05that you build an outcome analysis into
47:08any into any broadscale what would you
47:11call U uh social intervention because
47:14there's a good chance it'll backfire
47:16there's a high chance it'll backfire so
47:18it's all presupposition and it's it's
47:21based at least in part on the notion
47:23that the transgender Community is a
47:25community and that there are voices that
47:26speak for them homogeneously and that
47:28this is what they all want and that will
47:30work as intended
47:32and to me looking at this from from the
47:35social science perspective
47:37it's it's there's nothing about it
47:39that's credible Miss see and I also
47:41don't buy the intent so okay Senator D
47:46mer M thank you Mr
47:53chair first of all I'd like to ask a
47:55question to Mr Peterson
47:58and perhaps I would also have a question
48:00for uh Mr
48:03Brown my question is as
48:06follows Dr
48:08Peterson I'm trying to understand your
48:12position do you see a
48:17difference between the opinions that you
48:20express that you are expressing today on
48:23this
48:24issue as part of this public
48:30consultation and the actions that you
48:34take as a university
48:37Professor where you are in a position of
48:40authority and power over your
48:46students well first of all I don't
48:48necessarily consider myself in the
48:50position of authority and power I
48:52consider myself in a position of
48:54responsibility and those aren't the same
48:56things so I don't agree with the way
48:58that the the question is formulated and
49:00I don't understand what that has to do
49:02with my stance I mean if I believe that
49:04the legislation is going to do more harm
49:06than good and I also firmly believe
49:09which I do that it is more in the issue
49:12of an ideological move than than than
49:15something that's designed to address the
49:16concerns that it purports to address I
49:19would also like to point out briefly
49:21that you know what should have happened
49:22when I made that video and this is
49:24relevant to the question was that like
49:26maybe people paid attention to 10
49:28minutes to to it for 10 minutes and
49:30maybe it got a newspaper article and
49:31then it disappeared but I put my finger
49:34on something that's what I thought and
49:36the fact that this issue hasn't gone
49:37away in nine months quite the contrary
49:39it's exploded not only in Canada but in
49:42all sorts of parts of the world means
49:44that I means to me that I have some
49:46evidence that my choice of level of
49:47analysis was correct and that there's
49:50far more going on here so to speak than
49:52the mere surface issue that we're
49:54purporting to discuss and so I take
49:57exception to the notion that I'm somehow
49:59abandoning my personal responsibility to
50:01my students which is something that I
50:03believe is in fact driving what I'm
50:05doing I believe that my obligation to my
50:07students constantly is to tell them what
50:09I think and to make that as informed and
50:12careful and opinion as I can possibly
50:14matter ma master and that's what I
50:22do I think that you understand that if
50:24you come to participate or to appear
50:27before a senate committee studying a
50:29bill regardless of what we think of the
50:35question
50:36that I mean my question for you is do
50:39you make a difference between your
50:42opinion what you say and the fact that
50:45the
50:46university which pays you I believe
50:49unless I'm
50:50wrong the university considers
50:53you to be under its legal
50:58responsibility and
51:00so you are in a situation of authority
51:04over your students and this means that
51:06you can give an A or an F to your
51:09students and the components of the
51:11legislation I think that's Robin I'm I'm
51:14going to move on Senator McDonald thank
51:17you
51:18chair um Dr pedus I have a question for
51:22you
51:24um the thing that concerns me most in
51:26this legislation is compelled speech I
51:28think that's very
51:30concerning um this committee has heard
51:32from Megan Murphy who told us her
51:35opposition to this concept of gender
51:37fluidity fluidity because she believes
51:40gender is a social
51:42construction and Dr Gad sad also opposed
51:44to this legislation because of his
51:46belief in evolutionary
51:49biology what this shows is that with
51:51Bill c16 we are prematurely shutting
51:53down a discussion on gender and sex as
51:56fair from settled or appears to be fair
51:58from settled um and in my opinion when
52:01we look to the provincial definition set
52:02up by the commissions we are enshrining
52:05the theory of a gender Spectrum into the
52:07law I wonder if you can comment on that
52:10that's exactly what we're doing we're in
52:12and I think I think that that might even
52:14be more dangerous than in my opinion
52:17than the compelled speech issue because
52:20the social constructionist view of
52:21gender isn't another opinion it's just
52:24wrong so because and I can I can tell
52:27you why that is fairly I I'll take one
52:29minute to do that well the proposition
52:32that's instantiated for example in this
52:34in this particular visual which is a
52:36good representation of the of the
52:38philosophy of the policies is that
52:40there's no causal relationship between
52:43these four dimensions of identity and
52:44and that's palpably absurd I mean 98% of
52:48people it's it's
52:5099.7% of people who inhabit a body with
52:53a given biological sex identify with
52:55that biological sex it's it's they're
52:58incredibly tightly linked if if you
53:00can't uh attribute causality to a link
53:04that that's tight that's that tight you
53:06have to dispense with the notion of
53:07causality altogether and then of the
53:10people who who identify say as male or
53:13female who are also biologically male or
53:15female the vast majority of them have
53:17the sexual preference that would go
53:18along with that and the gender identity
53:20and the gender expression these these
53:22levels of analysis are unbelievably
53:24tightly linked and the the evidence that
53:27biological factors play a role in
53:29determining gender identity is in a word
53:31overwhelming there isn't a serious
53:33scientist alive who would dispute that
53:36now you get you get disputes about it
53:38but they always stem from essentially
53:40from the humanities and as far as I'm
53:43concerned I I've looked at it very
53:45carefully those arguments are entirely
53:47ideologically driven it's a tenant of
53:49the ideology that identity is socially
53:52constructed and that's partly why it's
53:53been instantiated into law because
53:56there's no no way they're going to win
53:57the argument but they can certainly win
53:59let's say the propaganda War especially
54:01by foisting this sort of reprehensible
54:03uh advertising information on children
54:06and that's part of the that's part of
54:07the express intent I would add that the
54:10trans uh uh trans complaintants have
54:12been covered under the existing grounds
54:14of sex before the tribunals across uh
54:16Canada and as the Minister of Justice
54:18said they are uh bringing this
54:20legislation in as a symbolic gesture and
54:23so uh I leave it to you to question what
54:25that gesture may be but but uh this
54:27community has been protected under the
54:30existing grounds that are are found in
54:31most of the human rights codes across uh
54:33across Canada on the ground of sex thank
54:36you chair thank you Senator Joel thank
54:38you Mr
54:39chair uh Mr Brown Mr Peterson the U uh
54:45justice Vagner from the Supreme Court in
54:47a seminar at the Ottawa
54:50University uh in early March of this
54:52year which is a couple of months ago uh
54:55stated the following
54:57of course he was not uh giving a
54:59decision from the bench you know but he
55:01was expressing his views and if you
55:03allow me I will quote him it's short
55:06when the court eventually faces a
55:08question touching on transgender
55:11identity these two preposition will
55:14provide essential frames of reference
55:16first one that identity is not fixed but
55:20changing that's the first proposal and
55:23then the second one that identity is not
55:26not innate but
55:29contextual I repeat that identity is not
55:32innate but
55:33contextual uh end of quote um I I I read
55:39that and I try to understand the
55:42implication uh of this you know those
55:45two binary kinds of of uh elements that
55:50and he says the court so I bet that he
55:52might have spoken to colleagues or you
55:55know the profession
55:58would
55:59you would you have a quarrel with that
56:02kind of approach to the definition of
56:05transgender uh reality or if you think
56:08that it's a proper uh way of approaching
56:13legally the issues because as you
56:16forcefully explain uh somebody one day
56:20might challenge you know the proposal
56:22the policies and all what would could
56:25stem from the enactment of those
56:27legislations so in other words we'll
56:29find ourselves in the court one day and
56:31we will have to you know to analyze and
56:34argue the case at least taking into
56:37account that references that those
56:40references that Justice Vagner mentioned
56:43not long ago so how would you react to
56:46that uh well I want to I want to make
56:48sure I understand your question properly
56:50so when when the Justice said this was
56:53he implying that the identity is not
56:56fixed but it is changing and that
56:58identity wasn't innate and it was
57:00contextual or was he outlining the the
57:03the the arena within which this debate
57:06might take place no it was essentially
57:08it was you know it was not a speech on
57:10this essentially it was more if I can
57:12use an expression that Mr Brown will
57:14understand it was rather a noit you know
57:16in a conference the conference was about
57:18identity but of course since you know
57:22identity is a topic of common and you
57:25know Common in Canada he felt that it
57:29was helpful if he would you know I
57:31should say put his grain of salt in the
57:33in the in the public debate by
57:36establishing what e thinks is you know
57:38how to Define transgender identity and
57:41establish some parameters okay so let's
57:44let's assume that it is changing and
57:47contextual yeah okay then why is
57:49conversion therapy a
57:51problem see this is what see the thing
57:53is is that when I started opposing this
57:56Bill people immediately assumed that I
57:58was transphobic and racist and all these
57:59other epithets that they're perfectly
58:01willing to trot forth at a moment's
58:03notice but you know there's been a
58:05tremendous attempt to make conversion
58:08therapy for people who are gay illegal
58:10right and the proposition is predicated
58:12on the idea that the identity the sexual
58:15preference identity is not changing nor
58:17contextual it's fundamental and really
58:20what that means is that it's grounded in
58:21something like biology it's okay fine
58:23let's scrap that okay now it's going to
58:25be changing contextual okay then why
58:28can't it be changed with context and so
58:32this is part of the problem with the
58:34policies is they're so incoherent that
58:36they're going to work against the people
58:37that they're designed to protect now
58:39people have a hard time believing I care
58:41about that but you know the fact that
58:43I've been called things doesn't mean
58:44that that's what I am so you know a lot
58:48of people who have let's call it a
58:50non-standard identity the tightest
58:53argument they have for public accept of
58:56that identity is that it's powerfully
58:58constrained by biological processes that
59:01are beyond their voluntary control so
59:04instantiate this view of humanity the
59:06social constructionist view of humanity
59:08and you can wave those claims goodbye
59:10because they're completely um they they
59:12are at complete odds with the social
59:14constructionist Viewpoint and I think
59:16that's a big mistake and I I really do
59:19believe that that will backfire hard
59:21against the people who this legislation
59:23is designed to protect if it's mutable
59:26changeable only subjective and and
59:28transformable on a whim then why should
59:31anyone have any respect for it gentlemen
59:34I'm going to have to intervene the hour
59:35has flown by and we uh all very much
59:38appreciate your appearance here today
59:39and your testimony as well thank you
59:42we'll suspend briefly before hearing
59:44from our next Witnesses
59:58[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16 by Jordan B Peterson, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 10,048 words across 1,529 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.