Toronto seems to be the epicentre of the culture wars. On Sunday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marched, with his wife and his two eldest children (aged 8 and 9), in Toronto’s Pride Parade. He wore a maple leaf Pride tattoo on his cheek and rainbow socks.
The city is also home to Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and the figurehead of campaigns against a proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act, Bill C-16, which aims to make “gender identity and expression” a prohibited ground of discrimination. Peterson says this could result in prosecutions of people who disagree with some claims about gender – who, for instance, believe that biology determines gender, or who refuse to use “gender-neutral pronouns” like “they” and “zi” as a replacement for “he” and “her”. The bill’s defenders say that it is just a defence for a community which suffers high levels of violence, mental illness and discrimination in areas such as applying for jobs. It is, they say, about securing liberties, not removing them.
We may soon discover who is right, because last week C-16 passed into law. “Compelled speech has come to Canada,” said Peterson, whereas Trudeau called it “great news”. The dispute has broader implications, because Canada seems to be leading the way in political correctness. But the meaning of the bill is much debated.
C-16 develops an already controversial piece of legislation. Canada’s Human Rights Act, passed in 1977, gives an impressively distilled statement of liberal ideology: it defends the principle that “all individuals” should have equal opportunity “to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices”.
These “discriminatory practices” could be based on a list of characteristics, including gender and race, and as of last week, “gender expression” – which, in practice, means identifying as something other than one’s biological sex.
Jonathon Van Maren, communications director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, believes it is “almost certain” that the new legislation will be used to dictate what language people can use it: “These laws would not simply tell you what you cannot say, but would actually dictate what you must say.”
The new legislation will be interpreted by courts, tribunals and commissions, and it is quite possible that they will take an expansive view of what constitutes discrimination. Brenda Cossman, a law professor at Toronto, has written: “Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self-identified pronoun.” So if a man comes into work, or a university – or a church? – and asks to be called “zi” or “she”, he might be able to report someone for discrimination if they refuse.
Already, Ontario’s human rights commission says that “harassment” can include “Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. The legal punishment is a fine or various practical remedies such as developing a non-discrimination policy.
C-16 will also make “hate speech” against trans people illegal. The more conciliatory defenders of the new law say that this would only apply to extreme language.
But perhaps the real threat of the legislation is not from its letter but its spirit. It appears to tell Canadians that coercive force can be used against dissenters from the new ideologies.
Jordan Peterson’s experience is representative here. His university has told him that he must use students’ preferred pronouns. The university also noted that some trans students had felt unsafe and in some cases been abused or threatened online. Peterson’s employer told him that “in view of these impacts, as well as the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code, we urge you to stop repeating these statements.” (Peterson refused.)
Van Maren believes that prosecutions will soon follow for those, like Peterson, who refuse to play along. “Canada has formally accepted the premises of transgenderism and the tenets of its most extreme adherents.”
We will soon find out; and Canada’s future may point the way for Britain.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.