This was nothing new = The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because [English Law][1] is one thing and [Common Law][2] is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first. The law in question is... [**Bill C-16 2016, *An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code). Bill C-16 made [the following changes](https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained)... > Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places. > First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others. > Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups. > Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing. > The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people. This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised. So when Peterson says... > The government, for the first time in the history of Canada... ...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender — such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice — or not, this kind of law existed already **before** Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people. So what about Common and English Law? - Since Bill C-16 did **not change the definitions** of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new. But can he get convicted for using the "wrong" pronouns? - In a Canadian university: maybe, but this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian **federal** law... https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55 > Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines. ...while [Canadian universities operate under **provincial charter**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Canada). So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs. But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get convicted, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back? > Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago. [Jordan Peterson][3] is employed at the [University of Toronto][4], in [Ontario][5], and the [Ontario Human Right Commission][6] — which tries these sorts of cases — has [expressed][7] the following (boldface added by me): > Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the *Code* in 2012. The *Code* prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, **services** (**including education**, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The *Code* does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology. So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However... > **Is it a violation of the *Code* to not address people by their choice of pronoun?** > > The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination. > > As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman. > > Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the *Code*, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular. Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he **refuses** to call a person — any person — by their chosen name, or purposely **misgenders** a person — any person — then it may very well be discrimination... **...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.** In conclusion = Yes, Jordan Peterson may be charged with discrimination if he deliberately calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But... * Bill C-16 — which was the object of Peterson's claim — did not affect him * Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back * Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common law and English Law [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Toronto [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario [6]: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/ [7]: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns