Bill C-16: a legal interpretation

An excellent take down of the legal aspects of Bill C-16 by D. Jared Brown highlights the totalitarian path Canada is heading towards by mandating compelled speech.

Merry Christmas, Canada.

*     *     *

If you don’t like the state pointing guns at you forcing to say what you may not believe in, you may like the lack of big government at

Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan talk about the rise of Marxism and social justice in western culture

Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.
– George Carlin

Canadian parliament has recently passed, very quietly and unbeknownst to the public, Bill C-16, a bill that amends the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, citing that using incorrect pronouns one “identifies with” constitutes hate speech and harassment, and thus a criminal offense.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

This is a direct tenet of cultural Marxism, forcing language on to others, under the guise of equality and compassion. This latest wave of political correctness, something that has been slowly trending in the past few decades but has been exponentially blowing up in the last five years or so, is disconcerting. Canada has always been left-leaning, with essentially all parties of government on the same side of the political spectrum, just to varying degrees. Now it is dangerously leaning to the radical left. Not even the Conservative Party opposes this piece of legislation.

Dr. Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan discuss this phenomenon in a comprehensive three hour long interview. Dr. Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, is a vocal critic of Bill C-16, citing it as a huge fall down the slippery slope of radical left ideology that has swept western culture. His claim that forced speech, especially speech predicated against scientific biological truths, obscures the truth from those that seek it. The path to truthful speech requires free speech. If everyone is forced to lie, not only does it make it difficult to seek the truth, it grants excessive power to those that control the narrative. After more than forty years of studying the rise of murderous, radically left regimes such as the Soviet Empire and Mao’s China, he claims that history is starting to repeat itself.

The continued use of free speech to vocally oppose damaging pieces of legislation like Bill C-16 is necessary before it escalates into violence, either as a result of mass conformity or repressed opposition. The latter is conceivable, with the radical right now growing as a reaction to the policies of radically left-leaning government and society.

I have broken up the interview between Dr. Peterson and Joe Rogan into short, shareable and easily digestible one to five minute segments.  The full interview can be found here.

Current social justice movement is like 1930’s Soviet Union dekulakization (1:21)

Millennials learn social justice, not Communist history, doomed to repeat it (3:44)

The obvious problem with equality of outcome (1:17)

Why affirmative action and diversity quotas are inherently sexist and racist (1:24)

Why intellectually lazy people believe in the wage gap (2:19)

Some degree of marginalization is required for a healthy society (1:14)

SJWs and Stalinists both attribute success to oppression (3:50)

Boiling frog strategy of Marxism will lead to ordinary people doing terrible things (2:56)

The truth about Hallowe’en (1:37)

Universities are NOT safe spaces (3:43)

Women’s Studies is a taxpayer subsidized radical revolution (4:33)

Universities have turned into ideological factories (0:59)

Irrational and subjective radical ideology now codified into law (0:54)

If you want to change the world you should change yourself (1:11)

Scientific truth versus religious truth (4:41)

Why society is in disarray and fiction like Harry Potter is enormously popular (1:03)

Absolute chaos (far left liberalism) vs. absolute order (far right conservatism) (4:46)

Jordan Peterson calls out the hyprocrisy of anti-capitalists (0:37)

Jordan Peterson explains why he put his job on the line to protest Bill C-16 (1:14)

Intelligence and morality are not correlated (1:36)

Jordan Peterson can picture himself as an Auschwitz camp guard (1:36)

*     *     *

There are no laws forcing you what to say at

EU Threatening Facebook and Twitter for not censoring “hate speech” and “fake news”

Article from right-leaning site:

Article from left-leaning site:

Related to my earlier post about Fake News, technology companies need to tell the European Union to buzz off.  The technology companies should merely be transporters of the message, not moderators of the message, and if the European Union wants to behave like China in their attempts to control the media narrative, they can blacklist access to Google, Facebook and Twitter using a similar Great Firewall of Europe.

“Fake news” and “hate speech”, if suppressed, will only cause malicious ideas to incubate. Free speech, on the other hand, will put on full display the opinions of the prejudiced and resentful, and in the free market of ideas they will likely be humiliated by reason, and subsequently those feelings of malice will subside. Censoring those opinions will only make fringe movements stronger in the Internet “black markets” where such speech is not met with any opposition. If Facebook and Twitter continue censorship, essentially telling you what to think, it is time for the public to move to more open and freer spaces.

*     *     *

If you’re tired of fake news calling each other fake news, then you might like because it doesn’t publish any news.

Google Aims to Block Fake News, but who determines what fake news is?

In the wake of complaints about rampant misinformation affecting the presidential election, Alphabet, Inc. (GOOGL) subsidiary Google announced on Monday that it is working on an update that will restrict ad-selling software from appearing on fake news sites.


Social media giant Facebook, Inc. (FB) and to a lesser degree Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) have also come under fire for what critics perceive as enabling questionable and unverified content that appears on news feeds. And that’s a big deal, given that the Pew Research Center says almost half of Americans get their news from Facebook as opposed to established media entities. But Google’s decision to restrict ad selling on fake news sites could be about preserving its own credibility.

Read more: Google Aims to Block Fake News (GOOGL, FB) | Investopedia

“Questionable and unverified content”, according to whom? Those that do the verifying — aren’t they questionable themselves?

In an effort to stifle free speech and the open market of ideas, technology companies are taking a partisan stance and siding with the corrupt mainstream media, to act as filters of information for “half of Americans”. That does not bode well for these technology companies. They should instead be focusing on simply being the means of transporting the message, but not as biased moderators of the message.  Leave it to the public to determine the credibility of their sources. If the public does not learn how to critically think about the material they read, then they will be more susceptible to brainwashing. Brainwashing, perhaps, is the intent of Google, Facebook and Twitter all along?

Here’s an example from the article itself:

On Sunday, the advertising juggernaut was accused of serving up its own brand of fake news in the form of search results for “final election numbers,” which yielded a false news story claiming President-elect Donald Trump won the popular vote.

False? Who said with complete veracity that Trump lost the popular vote, and why is that particular view considered factual? At the time of publication, there were legitimate arguments on both sides regarding the popular vote. If all the votes were tallied from Michigan and other states whose unreported counties were probably going to be voting in favour of Trump, there is an argument to be made that he may have won the popular vote. At the same time, he may not have won the popular vote merely taking into account the reported numbers after the election was called. However, the popular vote does not make a difference in the outcome of the election (electoral college votes are the ones that matter) hence why the accuracy of the popular vote should be contentious, and why it should be open for debate. If they plan on censoring such arguments, it becomes clear the ones who control what is fake and what is real will push their biases on to the populace, preventing people from discovering what they perceive to be factual on their own. The Ministry of Truth, a.k.a. the established media entities, will reign supreme.

Google, Facebook and Twitter will do technology and everyone a huge favour by being as non-partisan and apolitical as possible, before setting precedent on censoring and limiting free speech on the Internet, before becoming another propaganda outlet for the Ministry of Truth. It may be time for newer social media sites to take over, like over Twitter, in order to preserve open dialogue.

*    *    *

If the U.S. election and this article stresses you out, de-stress a little and play a game at