No, Peterson is wrong on all points = Quick background: [Jordan Peterson][3] is employed at the [University of Toronto][4], in [Ontario][5]. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university. On to the claim... 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 that Peterson is talking about 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, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns. 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 trivially 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 as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns? - No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. 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 charged with discrimination, 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. As I mentioned before, [Jordan Peterson][3] is employed at the [University of Toronto][4], in [Ontario][5], and the [Ontario Human Right Commission][6] 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, the OHRC then references the [Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario][8], which tries these kinds of cases... > **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 calls a person — any person — by a name they do not agree to, 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.** A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he **must** say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do <sub>(unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).</sub> What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson? = The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when [Jordan Peterson claims that][9] (boldface added by me)... > These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people **under the threat of legal punishment** to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say, ...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code. In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to [mediation][10]. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service. If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as... * Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is **compensation**, not **punishment**) * Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination * A written apology If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement. If a settlement is not reached there will be a [public hearing][11] and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising. **The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.** In conclusion = Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly 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 * The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour * Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back * This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment * He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it * It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University * Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law So on all points of the claim, **Jordan Peterson is wrong**. [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 [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Tribunal_of_Ontario [9]: https://torontosun.com/2016/10/19/u-of-t-tells-outspoken-prof-to-stop-making-public-statements/wcm/4f463c2a-5a72-45ac-9e28-3dfc853cc1fd [10]: http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/hrto/Guides/Guide%20to%20Mediation.pdf [11]: http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/application-and-hearing-process/#step5