Here is the relevant clip that details why not to stifle free speech just because one may find it offensive (here’s looking at you, Bill C-16):
Newman: Let me move on to another debate that has been very controversial for you. You got in trouble for refusing to call trans men and women by their preferred personal pronouns.
Peterson: No, that’s not actually true. I got in trouble because I said I would not follow the compelled speech dictates of the federal and provincial government. I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything. That didn’t happen.
Newman: You wouldn’t follow the change in law that was designed to outlaw discrimination.
Peterson: No, no, that’s what they said it was designed to do —
Newman: Okay. You cited freedom of speech in that. Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right to not be offended?
Peterson: Because, in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You know, like, you are certainly willing to risk offending me in pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.
Newman: Well, I’m very glad I put you on the spot!
Peterson: Well, I mean you get my point! You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should. You’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. I think more power to you as far as I’m concerned.
Newman: You haven’t sat there, and … I’m just trying to work that out. I mean —
Peterson: Ha! Gotcha!
Newman: You have got me! I’m trying to work that through my head. Took a while, took a while.
Peterson: It did, it did.
Newman: You have voluntarily come into this studio and agreed to be questioned. A trans person in your class has come to your class and said that they wouldn’t be called —
Peterson: That has never happened, and I would call them “she”.
Newman: So you would. So you kind of changed your tune on that —
Peterson: No. I said that right from the beginning. What I said at the beginning was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless of whether or not it was put in law. That’s what I said, and then the people that came after me said, “you must be transphobic and you mistreated a student in your class”. It’s like, I never mistreated a student in my class, I’m not transphobic, and that isn’t what I said.
Jordan Peterson very succinctly explains how the truth becomes suppressed once anyone has the power to censor others for spurious reasons (like “being offended”). It is why the Lindsay Shepherd case will be looked back as a historical moment in exposing the postmodern ideologues and their attempts to control the narrative through censorship, using identity politics to gradually usher in a totalitarian state. The rest of the interview addresses how the current landscape of identity politics can devolve into murderous regimes led by ideologues such as Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union.
The entire interview is worth a watch and almost acts as the modern FAQ to the radical left rhetoric that has consumed western society. It even adds a touch of realism with the vitriolic tone that normally accompanies such rhetoric from Cathy Newman, the interviewer. Kudos to Dr. Peterson for the calm and sharp responses and to Cathy Newman and Channel 4 for largely leaving those responses unedited and available for public viewing.
* * *
Be sure to share, leave a comment, bookmark and subscribe to the RSS feed.