Peterson and Bill C-16 – Why It Was Never Actually About "Free Speech" (2. Peterson’s sated argument for opposing Bill C-16)
In his own words ...
I’LL NOW CONSTRUCT PETERSON’S stated argument for opposing Bill C-16 on the basis of the threat it poses to free speech (hereafter A1.) I outline here the argument in its most simple form – giving what I believe would be Peterson’s response were he ever asked to explain the argument in the most basic language possible. [i]
Peterson’s argument A1, in its most simple form, can be summarised as follows:
A1. Premise 1: The right to freedom of speech for each individual citizen of each nation in what we have come to know as the western world is a necessary mechanism for upholding the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation in what we have come to know as the western world.
A1. Premise 2: Civilized, democratic societies are something that every citizen of each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should strive to strengthen, protect and maintain.
A1. Premise 3: Because 1., the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world intruding on the right to freedom of speech of each individual citizen under their jurisdiction equates to the undermining of a necessary mechanism for upholding the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation of what we have come to know as the western world. Such intrusions thereby equate to the weakening of the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation of what we have come to know as the western world.
A1. Premise 4: Because 1., 2. and 3., the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should rarely intrude on the right to freedom of speech of each individual citizen under their jurisdiction.
A1. Premise 5: Because 4, the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should rarely legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction do not use certain words.
A1. Premise 6: In adopting the Bill C-16 legislation – and thereby adding ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ as protected grounds and protected groups to the Canadian Criminal Code - the Canadian government were effectively making any use of incorrect gender pronouns for a given trans individual (e.g. using the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ for someone who identifies with ‘zie’ and ‘zir’, etc) a form of hate speech, and thereby legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction do not use certain words.
A1. Premise 7: Because 4., this means that the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should never legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction must use and affirm certain words especially as this is totally unprecedented within the history of the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation in what we have come to know as the western world).
A1. Premise 8: In adopting the Bill C-16 legislation, the Canadian government were effectively legally mandating that each citizen under their jurisdiction must affirm and use certain gender pronouns (e.g. ‘zie’, ‘zir’), and thereby legally mandating that each citizen under their jurisdiction must affirm and use certain words.
A1. Conclusion 1: Because 5. And 6., the Bill C-16 legislation probably ought to be opposed.
A1. Conclusion 2: Because 7. and 8., the Bill C-16 legislation definitely ought to be opposed.
LEST I be accused of putting words in Dr Peterson’s mouth, I’ll now providing for each premise of A1. a selection of relevant quotations from the professor’s talks and writings from over the years.
A1. Premise 1: The right to freedom of speech for each individual citizen of each nation in what we have come to know as the western world is a necessary mechanism for upholding the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation in what we have come to know as the western world.
Reference:
“The reason I’m defending freedom of speech is because that’s how people with different opinions settle their opinions in a civil society … Free speech is the mechanism by which we keep our [civilized, democratic] society functioning. It’s as a consequence of free speech and the ability to think that people can put their fingers on problems, articulate what those problems are, solve them and come to a consensus. And we risk losing that.”
– Peterson, Speech at the UOT ‘Rally for Free Speech’, 11.10.16. [ii]
“And the thing about free speech is that it’s not the right to criticize your leaders, which is what people usually characterize it as. Free speech is freedom to engage in the ... processes we use to formulate the problems in our [civilized, democratic] society, to generate solutions to them and reach a consensus. It’s actually a mechanism. It’s not just another value.”
- Peterson, quoted in in The Agenda with Steve Paikin, 27.10.16. [iii]
“I don’t believe that freedom of speech is just another value – I think that’s preposterous. I think that if you claim that then you know nothing about western civilization and history. Freedom of speech is not just another principle; it is the mechanism by which we keep our psyches and [civilized, democratic] societies organised …”
- Peterson, UOT Debate on Bill C-16, 21.11.16. [iv]
“Freedom of speech protects our societies from shipwreck on the Scylla of tyranny and the Charybdis of nihilism and despair. Freedom of speech allows us to identify the problems that beset us. Freedom of speech allows us to formulate solutions to those problems, and to reach consensus on the solutions. There is nothing in the absence of freedom of speech but tyranny and slavery.”
- Peterson, Article for The Hill, 18.10.16. [v]
A1. Premise 2: Civilized, democratic societies are something that every citizen of each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should strive to strengthen, protect and maintain.
Reference:
“… Freedom of speech is not just another principle; it is the mechanism by which we keep our psyches and [civilized, democratic] societies organised. And we have to be unbelievably careful about infringing upon that because [then] we’re infringing upon the process by which we keep chaos and order balanced, you know? And, if chaos and order go out of balance, then all hell breaks loose, and the situation is not good. And we’ve seen that happen many, many times in the 20th century, right? Since the late 1800s, our societies – our Western societies – have been careening madly between the hyper-repressive order of the radical right and the absolute devouring chaos of the radical left … and the only thing that can possibly save us from continuing to do exactly that is the dialogue of exactly the sort that I am … describing.”
- Peterson, UOT Debate on Bill C-16, 21.11.16. [vi]
“[T]he social justice hypothesis is that the legal structures of western civilization are … oppressive and patriarchal, and so it is perfectly reasonable to toss them over if you are in pursuit of something like social justice. It’s like, that’s fine people, sure go ahead and do that. But if you think that you can transform what we have already now into some kind of utopia, then you’re dangerous because that isn’t how the world works and utopians have been more dangerous than any other people for the last hundred years – that’s for sure! Like there’s all sorts of things wrong with western society, always - and there always will be. But compared to 85%-90% of the rest of the planet, this is bloody heaven - and that’s why people want to move here. So you can say: well it’s corrupt compared to my imaginary utopia – it’s like yeah, that’s for sure, it certainly is. But if your imaginary utopia was realised in hardcore politics over a thirty-year period, everyone would be out in the streets starving to death! And we already know that because it happened multiple times throughout the 20th century in societies that were – well, they weren’t as sophisticated as our society is now but they were plenty sophisticated for the time.”
- Peterson, Speech at Ryerson University, 11.2.17. [vii]
A1. Premise 3: Because 1., the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world intruding on the right to freedom of speech of each individual citizen under their jurisdiction equates to the undermining of a necessary mechanism for upholding the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation of what we have come to know as the western world. Such intrusions thereby equate to the weakening of the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation of what we have come to know as the western world.
Reference
“The reason I’m defending freedom of speech is because that’s how people with different opinions settle their opinions in a civil society. And if we lose that we’ll lose so much – you can’t imagine!”
– Peterson, Speech at UOT Rally for Free Speech, 11.10.16.
“ … [W]e have to be able to say what we have to say badly or we won’t be able to think at all! And I know where that leads: I studied totalitarianism for four decades and I know where it starts – it starts with the restrictions on freedom of speech!”
– Ibid. [viii]
“… There is nothing in the absence of freedom of speech but tyranny and slavery.”
– Peterson, Article for The Hill, 18.10.16.
A1. Premise 4: Because 1., 2. and 3., the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should rarely intrude on the right to freedom of speech of each individual citizen under their jurisdiction.
Reference:
“Now you can say [that] there should be reasonable restrictions on free speech – and that’s the case. You shouldn’t be allowed to yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre. And reasonable people can discuss and debate what those restrictions should be. But we can’t debate the fact that putting restrictions on free speech is something dangerous beyond comprehension.”
- Peterson, Speech at UOT Rally for Free Speech, 11.10.16. [ix]
A1. Premise 5: Because 4, the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should rarely legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction do not use certain words.
Reference:
“Now, I have some real problems with “hate speech” legislation and the reason I have problems with it is because it is not obvious when speech is motivated by “hate”. Angry speech can feel like it is motivated by hate - but angry speech is the only kind of speech in some sense that is motivated by real disagreement ... And if there is real disagreement, angry people have to talk it out. Because, if they don’t, then - well then a bunch of terrible things happen ... If you interpret ‘hate speech’ too broadly, then you drive the so-called ‘haters’ underground. And then you don’t know what they are up to ... You get the rise of all sorts of underground political movements when people aren’t able to express what they think, even though it is unpleasant. So if you want to know where the ‘haters’ are, you have to let them talk.”
– Peterson, ‘Fear and the Law’, 27.9.16 [x]
“… [T[he problem is that sometimes you need to be upset in the present to solve problems in the medium and long-term. You can’t stop people from talking about upsetting things because, as I said, that’s just the same as stopping them from thinking. And—and if they can’t think really complicated things through, well then they don’t solve problems and then the problems manifest themselves in the real world.”
- Ibid [xi]
“… [W]here not debating about whether “hate speech” exists because bloody well right it exists and it can be unbelievably pathological … But you want that out in the air so that people can hear it. You want to drive the people who hate underground? We know what happens psychologically when you do that... Anything you drive underground thrives … And then it festers and turns into hatred that far exceeds the original.”
– Peterson, Debate at the Runnymede Society at Queen’s Law School, 23.1.17 [xii]
“… And then there’s other questions: who defines hate? … It’s great if you’re on the left and the left is in power because the left defines hate. But they’re not going to be in power forever, man. And as soon as the people who are on the opposite side come into power, they’re going to use whatever arguments you had and their own. And whatever you think is going to be hate speech, like, right now ... So that’s what you’re always thinking when you’re putting a limit on something – especially someone else’s speech. It’s like: OK, how could the most malevolent fool imaginable screw this up? And then presume that will happen. And then take steps so that that isn’t how it turns out.”
– Ibid [xiii]
A1. Premise 6: In adopting the Bill C-16 legislation – and thereby adding ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ as protected grounds and protected groups to the Canadian Criminal Code - the Canadian government were effectively making any use of incorrect gender pronouns for a given trans individual (e.g. using the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ for someone who identifies with ‘zie’ and ‘zir’, etc) a form of hate speech, and thereby legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction do not use certain words.
Reference:
“ ‘[Bill C-16] 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.’ So that’s basically a hate-crime modification... So any crime that is associated with bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression is now an aggravating circumstance - so it’s a hate crime.”
– Peterson, ‘Fear and the Law’, 27.9.16 [xiv]
“It’s not just a form of discrimination, it’s a form of hate speech. That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language [certain gender pronouns] into the same category as holocaust denial and suggested that maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.”
– Peterson, quoted in in The Agenda with Steve Paikin, 27.10.16 [xv]
A1. Premise 7: Because 4., this means that the governments which rule each nation in what we have come to know as the western world should never legally mandate that each citizen under their jurisdiction must use and affirm certain words especially as this is totally unprecedented within the history of the civilized, democratic societies that are found in each nation in what we have come to know as the western world).
Reference:
“We’ve never had a situation within the usage of English before that required legislation to produce a transformation in the manner in which people spoke. And it’s a very dangerous precedent. So it’s one thing to tell people what they can’t say – so, for example, we have legislation making it illegal to do such things as deny the Holocaust. It’s a completely different thing to demand that people use certain words when they’re formulating their own ideas.”
- Peterson, Debate with Professor A. W. Peat on CBC News, 29.10.16. [xvi]
“There is, however, a crucial difference between laws that stop people from saying arguably dangerous words and laws that mandate the use of politically-approved words and phrases. We have never had laws of the latter sort before, not in our countries. This is no time to start.”
- Peterson, Article for The Hill, 18.10.16
A1. Premise 8: In adopting the Bill C-16 legislation, the Canadian government were effectively legally mandating that each citizen under their jurisdiction must affirm and use certain gender pronouns (e.g. ‘zie’, ‘zir’), and thereby legally mandating that each citizen under their jurisdiction must affirm and use certain words.
Reference:
“Now, we’ve had laws passed in this country that regulate … what people can’t say – and that’s reasonable. But it seems to me that we’re in danger of crossing a line. With Bill C-16 and its surrounding legislation, it’s the first time I’ve seen in our legislative history where people are attempting to make us speak their language – and that’s not something that I’m willing to do!
-Peterson, Speech at UOT Rally for Free Speech, 11.10.16. [xvii]
“[The Bill C-16 legislation is] worse than a curtailing of freedom. It’s a demand that the population uses a certain kind of linguistic approach. It’s an appropriation of speech. There’s no excuse for that! That never has happened once in the history of English common law, right? It’s a barrier that we do not cross. Hate speech laws are bad enough … And then we cross another barrier and we allow the government to compel speech for some hypothetically compassionate reason? No way. That’s a really bad idea.”
– Peterson, Interview with Leigh Sales for ABC Australia, 12.3.18. [xviii]
“So now a person is compelled under Canadian law to use the pronoun of another individual’s choice on pain of law. And I thought ‘well no, that’s not acceptable’. It’s one thing to put limits on what a person can’t say – like say with “hate speech” laws, which I also don’t agree with, by the way, but that’s a different argument; I think it’s a narrower argument. But to compel me to use a certain content when I’m formulating my thoughts or my actions, under threat of legislative action? I thought ‘no!’. What’s happened there is that the government has introduced compelled speech legislation into the private sphere. It’s never happened in the history of English common law. And so I said: ‘there’s no way I’m abiding by that! I don’t care what your damn rational is!’.”
- Interview with Maajid Nawaz on LBC, 22.5.18. [xix]
“… [T]here’s never been a time in English common law history where the government compelled speech. And the Canadian government dared to do that. And that was unacceptable.”
- Interview with Jo Coburn on Daily Politics, 22.5.18 [xx]
A1. Conclusion 1: Because 5. And 6., the Bill C-16 legislation probably ought to be opposed.
A1. Conclusion 2: Because 7. and 8., the Bill C-16 legislation definitely ought to be opposed.
I put forward the above formulation, then, as Peterson’s argument A1. in its most simple form.
In the next part of this series, I will explore two popular counter-arguments to Peterson’s argument A1. thus stated, made by a number of Professor Peterson’s critics.
[i] Were this something he were actually ever capable of, that is. You know what he’s like.
[ii] genuiNEWitty, YouTube, 12.10.16: 02:10.
[iii] The Agenda with Steve Paikin, 27.10.16: 38:10.
[iv] University of Toronto, YouTube, 21.11.16: 18:00.
[v] Peterson, J. B., ‘Canadian gender-neutral pronoun bill is a warning for Americans’, TheHill.com, 18.10.16, https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a/
[vi] University of Toronto, YouTube, 21.11.16: 18:10.
[vii] Jordan Peterson, ‘2017/02/11: An incendiary discussion at Ryerson U’, YouTube, 2.3.17,
30:25.
[viii] genuiNEWitty, YouTube, 12.10.16: 04:27.
[ix] Ibid: 02:55.
[x] ‘Fear and the Law’, 27.9.16: 23:20.
[xi] Ibid: 26:10.
[xii] Jordan Peterson, ‘2017/01/23: Social Justice/Freedom of Speech: Bill C16 Debate Queen's Law School’, YouTube, 07.2.17,
54:35.
[xiii] Ibid: 55:36.
[xiv] Jordan B. Peterson, YouTube, 27.9.16: 22:04.
[xv] Quoted in The Agenda with Steve Paikin, 27.10.16: 24:42.
[xvi] CBC News, YouTube, 29.10.16: 04:09.
[xvii] genuiNEWitty, YouTube, 12.10.16: 03:22.
[xviii] ABCLibrarySales, ‘Jordan Peterson: Freedom of Speech and the Right to Offend’, YouTube, 15.3.18,
02:10.
[xix] LBC, ‘Jordan Peterson Meets Maajid Nawaz | Interview in Full | LBC’, YouTube, 22.5.18,
01:30.
[xx] PhantasyAngelify, YouTube, 22.5.18: 44:58.