@OwlInASack I totally agree, and this is what makes him so annoying to me. Why does someone who says so many demonstrably false and obviously hypocritical things get so much attention? The answer of course is that he just was at the right place at the right time and that he swam with the wave of this SJW hysteria that is totally blown out of proportion.

@OwlInASack My favourite response to him is this:

Bill C16 does demand certain language punishable by fines.

@Dietl That was funny. Thanks.

@Jacar All Bill C-16 did was add gender identity and gender expression to the list of protected groups. Wilfully promoting genocide or hatred against a group based on race, sexual orientation, age and religion was already forbidden and now it includes gender identity. Just using the wrong pronoun is not automatically hatred againsta a group. No legal expert would say this.
But the bill already passed. If you and Peterson were right there would surely have been a massive amount of arrests based on misgendering. Have there been? Of course not, because this has all been a sham from the start.

@Dietl To be clear:::: This video starts with restating a lie about Peterson. Starting with a falsity will always taint all that follows. In this diatribe, many false statements are offered as reality. Consequently the conclusions are also false.

The first lie:

Peterson's opposition to Bill C-16 had nothing to do with transgender issues.
His stance was about opposing government mandated compelled speech.

He has actually said, if asked if he would use a person's preferred pronoun, if the person was sincere, and not trying to manipulate him. And he also has actually said that NO ONE has ever asked him to use a preferred pronoun.

This issue is about a government compelling speech with the force of law. Everyone should be profoundly concerned about the implications. This is Orwellian Newspeak. What comes next? Fascism is all about what you can and cannot say.

In the United States this issue was settled in 1942 by the supreme court stating that no one can be compelled to speak that which they did not want to. The court case was brought By Jehovah's Witnesses, who objected to their children being forced to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" in schools.

((
Ref: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.

This ruling was NOT about religion. The court..."ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone." And not just the pledge.
))

Most of what follows in the video are false interpretation of Peterson's words and actions.

@Jacar You completely ignored my last comment. When you say "the issue is about a government compelling speech", you miss the point that C-16 just did not do that and that Peterson pulled that narrative out of thin air.
You said "this video starts with restating a lie about Peterson". Please give me the quote which you think is a lie.