Talk:An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

No criticism or controversy??

There is a massive debate surrounding this bill and the current page author(s) frames it as though the only criticism that it doesn't go far enough! The concern is that "hate proganda" will expand to include disagreement with trans theory and this will curtail academic freedom. The term "genderism" is a good example, it refers to the majority view in evolutionary biology and feminism that sex is a biological reailty. Trans theory posits that sex is a social construction, and that gender is something attached to neither sex not social forces. Simone de Beauvoir and her seminal work the Second Sex are both at risk of becoming hate speech because they represent "genderism," a term designed to mirror "racism" and "sexism," that refers to those who are critical of trans theory. (See Slate article.) Further, the bill, critics say, will result in compelled speech -- which the Supreme Court in the U.S. has ruled unconstitutional -- in that it will compel individuals to use gender-neutral pronouns, which are "made up" -- that is, they are not commonly used by most English speakers. Joeletaylor (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill C-16 doesn't criminalize academia or compel speech. It only does two things: permits tribunals to order remedies in the event of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, and criminalizes speech advocating violence or genocide against transgender people. de Beauvoir is not discriminating in producing academic work, no matter how much mainstream theory might agree/disagree with her, and any complaints she might receive fall outside of the tribunal's authority unless her work begins calling for elimination of transgender people. "Compelling speech" is highly unlikely. People often bring up an example like consistently (accidentally) misgendering someone resulting in tribunal sanction for the worker - but it's a bad example. No one has even been found to discriminate because they're unable to pronounce, or forgetful about pronouncing names uncommon in English, for example (Nguyen), unless it was paired with other clearly discriminatory behaviour. If people mess up with gendering, they mess up. It's only a problem if they're messing up on purpose, with the intent of causing harm, and it's clear that's the case. And, if that is the case, why shouldn't that discrimination be punished? Heterodidact (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: A Canadian tribunal has awarded a transgender, non-binary server $30,000 and ruled refusal to use someone’s preferred pronouns as a human rights offence. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-tribunal-transgender-nonbinary-restaurant-worker-pronouns-b1931972.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.217.120 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"Bill C-16 doesn't criminalize academia or compel speech."... " It's only a problem if they're messing up on purpose, with the intent of causing harm, and it's clear that's the case. And, if that is the case, why shouldn't that discrimination be punished?" I hope you realize these two statements are contradictory. The bill does, if your second statement is correct, compel speech, and punishes the expression of disagreement with a particular opinion, specifically the belief that gendered pronouns should be used in accord with a person's biological sex, and/or that one's gender identity is irrelevant to what the appropriate pronoun; additionally, it penalizes one who believes one should not be compelled to use pronouns invented by others to describe them. IOW, it is a valid position that people do not have the right to dictate how other people describe them, regarding pronouns, adjectives, species, or any other category. The presumption of "intent to harm" is also spurious; much as it may unsettle or even traumatize a Christian to hear an atheist declare that there is no God, it would not be fair to attribute 'intent to harm' to the atheist, on the basis that his opinion distresses someone. So, the viewpoint, "why shouldn't that discrimination be punished" most certainly is nota 'default' or neutral viewpoint here, and does not justify excluding common criticism of the bill from the page, as seems to have happened (only the Peterson incident is mentioned at the moment). - Octavian

What if they believe that using the pronouns would harm the person like Dr Peterson.Heroin123 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: As I believe this topic might be under a WP:1RR restriction I won't revert you again myself, but I am fairly sure this edit does not conform to the wording in the bill in question. Please provide a reliable source to back up your edit that summarizes the legislation as "To enforce the use of the 'right' words" and states that it makes it illegal to "use the 'Wrong' pronouns". Funcrunch (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: I still challenge your edit based on the source you provided. The bill refers to deliberate misgendering as Heterodidact pointed out above, and your putting "wrong" in quotes in your edit suggests a non-neutral viewpoint on your part. Funcrunch (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Heroin123: On taking a closer look at the source you provided I see that it is not even the bill under discussion; it is a document from the Ontario Human Rights Commission dated January 2014. This is the bill. Funcrunch (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Just FYI: "Heroin123" is a sockpuppet of a known vandal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heroin123 for details. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, just saw that. A very persistent sock; we've had several run-ins on gender-related articles. Funcrunch (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Amazing that there is no section on the Peterson Affair

Whether one agrees with him or not, no page describing this bill can be considered unbiased without outlining the debate around the bill.

192.197.178.2 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC) BasedGod

I have looked at the history of the page and there used to be one it appears.Heroin123 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I, too, am amazed that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding this bill. I came to this article to read more about the controversy, especially Jordan Peterson's view and the counter-view. The absence of such a section in the article stinks of censorship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Axl: You realize you're replying to a sockpuppet, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_D.H.110. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, it looks like it's reasonably well covered at Jordan Peterson, which makes sense because the entire "affair" seems to be Peterson engaging in some self-promotion or attention-seeking behavior. After reviewing what the D.H.110 sockpuppets were pushing here (not remotely reliable sources and various youtube videos, either self-promotional or just from hate groups), what they tried to insert is totally invalid. If you feel like coming up with some wording for a brief section on controversies during passage that actually has reliable sourcing, please, suggest away. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not know that the account is a sockpuppet. However that is irrelevant. His (zer?) point is still valid. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So it begins. Apparently, LifeSiteNews is an "unreliable source". For interested readers, this is their declaration. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Life Site News is about as reliable as Breitbart. It's a hate site that doesn't even merit its own wikipedia article, as it's just a propaganda site for the extremist Campaign Life Coalition. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Even without getting into the broader merits of the site, the article cited states that, after passing the Senate, the bill "requires only royal assent in the House of Commons to become law." I'm sure we can find more reliable sources if needed, but I think a brief summary and link to the main article is all that is needed here.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Now Morty C-137 characterizes my edit as "attempting to reinsert POV-pushing material from D.H.110 sockpuppets". Wow! I haven't even seen any of the so-called "POV-pushing material". All I did was add a single relevant, referenced sentence about the (massive) controversy. It is particularly ironic that ze accuses me of "POV-pushing" while simultaneously censoring the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the material was relevant and should be reinserted. I would also invite all editors to make an extra effort to assume good faith on a contentious topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

unhelpful personal comments. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're not going to get that with Morty, who seems to be unlikely to assume good faith on the part of anyone. Your best bet is to simply ignore him, if you can. His mantra of "POV pushing", "harassment", "inappropriate", and "sockpuppet" are endless, and responding to any of it will probably not be a good use of your time. KDS4444 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Enumerating the perceived faults of other editors wasn't really what I had in mind.--Trystan (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Fuck it, you're on your own @Trystan:. Admins won't do shit about the WP:WIKIHOUNDING by KDS4444 and others, there's no point to be here just so they can use newbies like a fucking whipping boy. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this source suitable? This is their mission statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Suitable for what use? Aside from noting that the bill is in force, the IJR article is almost entirely made up of quotations and paraphrasing of Peterson's The Hill op-ed. The op-ed is a itself a reliable source for Peterson's opinions, but not for the factual correctness of the claims he makes.--Trystan (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Factual correctness" – lol. Since you mentioned it, I have sought out Peterson's The Hill op-ed, which I had not read before. (It is linked from the ijr article.) Anyway, I am adding the ijr source as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the citation with a cite to the The Hill op-ed. There is no advantage to using the derivative article, and the significant disadvantage that it states highly contested opinion as fact, particularly in the headline. Citing the op-ed itself makes the source of the claims transparent to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Updating needed

Since Bill C-16, 2016 has passed all stages in the House of Commence and the Senate and is now awaiting royal assent, this article needs to be updated to reflect this. As this would be a bit to complected for me to do, I will leave this task to a Wikipedian or Wikipedians more knowledgeable in this area. Relevant info can be found here. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Balance and neutrality

I see Peterson is briefly mentioned here but I think the criticism section needs some attention, expansion. It does not paint a fair picture of the situation. As someone unfamiliar with the situation, it glosses over the criticism in 2 lines mentioning prof. Peterson, as apparently the only critic (there are others) and discrediting him instantly.

As a casual reader, this mention a bill, the facts, summary and predecessor but in the criticism section (smallest section of the article) only mentions a single critic by name, and discredits his criticism in the line following his mentions. This seems quite unbalanced. Theo10011 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate balance to strike isn't between coverage of neutral, factual information about the bill and coverage of criticism, it is between coverage of criticism and coverage of support. The Criticism and Support section is the shortest in the article because the primary focus is appropriately on the Bill's content and legislative history.

Criticism and Support mentions two critics by name, but does not go into any detail about the support for the bill, so it is hard to see how it could be considered as slanted in favour of supporters. The section doesn't "discredit" Peterson, but does suggest that reliable sources indicate disagreement with his claims about the legislation by Canadian legal experts. In fact, the article significantly underplays the extent of that disagreement.

Peterson's views and the associated controversy are explored in greater detail at his article, which is linked here per WP:SUMMARY.--Trystan (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding multiple cases (e.g. https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt144/2018bchrt144.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHcHJvbm91bgAAAAAB&resultIndex=4) the passage with the legal expertes doubting legal consequences should be changed. Also I don't understand why 18 is considered a source for "legal experts deny". It's an 1h video of his hearing and there are pretty much arguments for both sides in it. It seems to me the passage is designed to give the impression of an overwhelming majority against him. 2A02:6D40:2173:BE01:5492:6498:EC52:D8F4 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

@Gracefool: regarding your revert, I intentionally made a separate section "Controversy" because of the recent and prominent case at WLU which is related to this law, and in the fact the current sentence "In November 2017, Peterson's critique of the law was deemed unsuitable for presentation at Wilfrid Laurier University by two professors of Communication studies and the university's Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support, who said it created "an unsafe learning environment and was itself in violation of Bill C-16" does not connect well with the previous sentence, does not describe the situation very well per WP:NPOV, and it is loosely related to the context and purpose of the section "Criticism and support" in general. I propose making of section "Controversy", perhaps with the current information in WLU paragraph at Jordan Peterson article section partly/mostly moved into this article, or a better and informative edit of the existing sentence perhaps with the focus on reliable considerations in which is discussed and criticized the part about the mentioned "misuse" of the law.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a full section is far too much weight for something only superficially related to the topic of this article. The two connections between the Laurier controversy and this law are 1) it was Peterson's critique of the law that was the subject of the video, which makes the content more suitable for Peterson's article than here, and 2) the faculty member incorrectly states that C-16 is somehow relevant. If we focus the content on the C-16 related portions of the currently-cited sources, we can make those points in 2-3 sentences.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For now agree, the edit was alright.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's better now :) ··gracefool 💬 04:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not common name

Any reason not to use the common name? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

By common name, do you mean Bill C-16? Looking at Category:Canadian federal legislation, the only article titled by the designation of the bill is Bills C-1 and S-1, which is about two bills that never proceed to become law. In general, I think using the name of the Act for the article title is the appropriate naming convention to follow, as it clarifies that the article is about an Act, rather than merely a proposed piece of legislation.--Trystan (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Plus, referring to "bills" is ambiguous, because the bill numbering system re-starts with every session of Parliament. There is probably a Bill C-16 every session, as at least forty bills are generally introduced each session. The title of the Act once passed is not ambiguous. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Trystan, what is clear is that the current name is not the common name and should be changed. What do you guys suggest? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t suggest anything be done. The topic of this article is appropriately the Act, rather than the bill that led to the Act. Accuracy, precision, and consistency with other article titles are all relevant considerations in picking a title, and all weigh heavily in favour of the current title.

A bill is a news event in its time, but it is the Act that has lasting notability. There have been dozens of Bill C-16s in Canadian history. Many received extensive coverage when they were before Parliament, and many led to notable Acts, including creation of the National Sex Offender Registry or establishing fixed election dates for federal elections. Recentism says that the latest Bill C-16 is the most important one, but long-term significance should also be considered.--Trystan (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, if you don't think the current name is accurate, and you don't want to use the bill, what do you think should be the name? For the reasons already outlined, I think this article is appropriately named, since it's about the statute. There already are articles on gender identity and the reaction to this bill. However, if you think it is not appropriately named, what is your suggestion?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay Shepard Controversy?

I suggest that the section on Lindsay Shepard be removed, as it was a misinterpretation of the bill that resulted in no legal consequences. Thoughts?

184.65.167.34 (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Were someone to come to our article to get up to speed on the bill, and after reading leave thinking "OK, now I know what i need to know about the bill, thanks, Wikipedia!", without covering the Shepard incident we'd leave them with a rather large hole in their knowledge of the issues surrounding the bill. We would leave them unprepared to intelligently discuss the bill and the issues surrounding it, and would leave them liable to be blindsided in any debate or discussion about the bill and its interpretation among socially aware and educated women and men already up to speed on it. The article does cite a professor pointing out that the bill does not apply to universities, and I believe our coverage is warranted and sufficient. Marteau (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

First: how about a link to provide evidence for this claim ("misinterpretation"). Second: the bill was the basis for this controversy so it's appropriate to mention here. Perhaps a link to a separate article would suffice. Danwroy (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Legislation, I propose moving this article to Bill C-16, 2016 since "Bill C-16" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose that move, for the reasons discussed above. A bill is a news event in its time, but it is the Act that has lasting notability. The topic of this article is appropriately the Act, rather than the bill that led to the Act. I don't see any guidance in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Legislation that supports using the title of a bill to refer to an Act. Looking at Category:Canadian federal legislation, the only article titled by the designation of the bill is "Bills C-1 and S-1", which is about two bills that never proceed to become law. Accuracy, precision, and consistency with other article titles are all relevant considerations in picking a title, and all weigh heavily in favour of the current title.--Trystan (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, for the reasons already given earlier, when the issue was raised in March, 2018. In addition to the points made then, there are two additional problems with the new proposed title. First, the proposed title is inaccurate. This article is about a statute, passed by Parliament. It is not about a bill. Second, the proposed new title is completely uninformative. It doesn't give any indication what the article is about, what country it's about, or what the bill does. By contrast, the current title is very informative. It tells the reader that it's about an amendment statute, in Canada, that deals with human rights and the criminal law. The title of an article should be informative; the current title is; the proposed title is not. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Against the law to not refer to people by their preferred "gender identity" or other preferred term?

Have heard this is the case now in Canada, eg calling a person born with male DNA a male, mr etc is now a criminal offence, but have been unable to find such a law. Is it the case or are people free to call people with male DNA male as they are or even call a female DNA person male even tho they do not pretend to be male?--CuriousQuestions (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an Arby's the talk page for discussing improvements to the article; questions like this are better asked on the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -sche (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In April of 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia declared a father guilty of "family violence" for calling his trans "daughter" his son. Jordan Peterson was exactly right about the consequences of this bill. It is now literally a crime in Canada for the average citizen to "misgender" their own children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.205.41 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That case has nothing to do with the legislation that is the subject of this article, and your summary of it is inaccurate. This is not a forum for general discussion.--Trystan (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The way the article currently has it, Peterson is portrayed as some out-of-left-field critic whose criticisms are rejected by legal experts. The sources say something different. e.g the Vice source used for Cossman's view and the statement that 'not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech' actually agrees that the bill could penalize using the wrong pronouns - it only disputes that this would be criminalized and punishable by jail time, but it agrees that "violating the human rights code can only be punished through fines". Izzy Borden (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources provided, along with others that are available, explicitly state there is a significant disagreement, and the article reflects that. Hate speech provisions under the Criminal Code and anti-discrimination provisions under the Canadian Human Rights Act are separate laws, operating in different contexts through different mechanisms. The article accurately reflects several available sources that indicate widespread disagreement among legal experts with Peterson's claim that the Act would elevate refusal to use preferred pronouns to criminal hate speech. The article also reflects that experts agree that in some circumstances pronoun use might have legal ramifications (e.g., repeatedly and intentionally misgendering someone potentially rising to the level of discrimination in a federally regulated industry).--Trystan (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

there is disagreement, but we need to b e clear about what the disagreement is: As far as I can tell, the only disagreement is that Peterson apparently said (though I can't find the quote, it is not sourced in the article) that the law would make it "criminal hate speech", while those that disagree apparently think (incorrectly) that "criminal" are only things that are punishable by jail time, which would exclude this. But they agree that pronoun misuse can be subject to fines and other sanctions. The article does not clearly reflect that- it makes it seems like those that disagree don't think the law would make pronoun misuse punishable. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two things: (1) I think that the sources make it clear that hypothetically, intentional miscalling could potentially be a human rights violation, which if taken to extremes, could potentially lead to jail time for contempt. However, the commentators make it clear that is a very unlikely scenario. As far as I’m aware, in the six years since the bill was enacted, the issue has never arisen, so remains a hypothetical discussion. I think the text of the article makes that clear, and there’s not much more we can say. (2) the discussion about criminal / non-criminal is important in the Canadian constitutional context. Human rights laws are not criminal laws. Even if someone were imprisoned for contempt for failing to comply with a tribunal order, that is a civil punishment, not a criminal one. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification regarding the criminality vs civil punishment issue in Canadian law. However, I don't think the article is clear on the fundamental issue: "Criminality" and jail time aside, there is no disagreement that as Peterson claims, this amendment could subject those who deliberately misuse pronouns to sanctions such as fines. This needs to be spelled out clearly, without muddying the waters with claims and counter-claims of "would it be criminal prosecution or just civil". The fact that no such prosecution has occurred, yet, is really beside the point. Bad laws on the books could be used and abused at any time - that is Peterson's point. Izzy Borden (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we can’t just take Peterson’s word for it. Until the law is actually applied by a court, it’s just opinions. Peterson’s opinion, lawyers’ opinions are just that — opinions. The article sets out the various opinions, pro and con, and Wikipedia can’t go past that until there is a reputable source explaining how the law has been applied in practice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bad laws on the books could be used and abused at any time - that is Peterson's point." That may be Peterson's point, but Wikipedia cannot assume it is a bad law. We have to maintain NPOV. Other commentators have more positive things to say about the law, and are quoted in the article, like the President of the CBA. Unless and until we get some judicial commentary on the law, there's not much more we can say, without getting into original research. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

One last comment: it’s incorrect to refer to “prosecutions” and “fines” in the human rights comment. A human rights complaint is a civil matter, where the complainant is the applicant for civil relief, on a civil standard of proof, not the criminal standard. If the complainant is successful, the respondent may be ordered to pay monetary damages to the complainant, just like in other civil matter. They are not fined, with the fine money going to the public purse, which is how it works in criminal matters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we say, in Wikipedia's voice, that this is bad law, nor that we take Peterson's word for anything - I am just saying we should present his view and his opponents' views clearly and fairly. The article doesn't do that, as explained above. The article should be clear that there is broad agreement that this law potentially subjects those misusing pronouns to sanctions. Both Peterson and his critics agree on this. Some may think this is bad, others that this is good - but we need to be clear on this point. Final note - This article is named Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, so let's stop pretending we are just talking about Human Rights Complaints. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Act amended both the promotion or incitement of hatred and promotion of genocide provisions of the Criminal Code, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act. The point raised by several legal experts is that, while the amendments do mean someone could be charged wilfully promoting hatred against people based on gender expression, there is no way that refusing to use non-preferred pronouns would be anywhere close to the legal standard required for such a charge. (These provisions are interpreted by the courts in the context of constitutional protections of freedom of expression; misuse of pronouns doesn't get anywhere near the sort of vile language that the courts have found necessary to meet the threshold of promoting hatred.) That is the clear point of disagreement succinctly conveyed where the article says "not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech".

I don't think it would accurately reflect the sources for the article to describe "broad agreement that this law potentially subjects those misusing pronouns to sanctions". First, the sources describe a pretty fundamental disagreement. Second, that is far too general a statement to describe the substance of what was actually agreed to - that federally regulated employers or service providers can't harass employees or customers based on gender identity, and repeated and deliberate misgendering by using non-preferred pronouns might constitute harassment. But the article already goes out of its way to set out those situations - a full paragraph is dedicated to them - so to the extent that the reader wants to consider them a vindication of Peterson's stance, they are free to do so. We don't actually characterize it one way or the other.

I agree with Mr Serjeant Buzfuz above. We are limited in what we can say; specifically limited to summarizing the reliable sources. It would be WP:SYNTHESIS to try to unpack or expand upon the viewpoints represented beyond what was said in the sources. Additionally, going too far into old speculation about what effect a law might have in the future is WP:UNDUE.--Trystan (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a conflation here between what would be needed for a criminal prosecution for hate speech, and what would be needed for non-criminal sanctions for violating the Human rights acts. Regarding the latter, here is what the sources in the article say:

Legal expert Cossman: "violating the human rights code can ... be punished through fines or non-financial remedies", and "“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely...Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”

Legal expert Brown: "The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Who disagrees with this? Izzy Borden (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

They are discussing extremely hypothetical possibilities, where the possibility of jail time isn't for the civil matter, but for wilful failure to comply with tribunal or court orders. It would be misleading, in my opinion, to collapse all those intervening stages and say that jail time is likely to result from misgendering, which seems to be the position taken by Pederson. The lawyers being cited are not agreeing with his position, and we shouldn't suggest that they are. The intervening stages that could possibly trigger jail time are wilful failure to comply with a court order, and a contempt citation, and a court hearing on whether the person is in contempt, and a ruling by the court. But at that stage, it's not the original civil matter that is in issue, it's the failure to comply with a court order. Technically, any civil matter could potentially trigger jail time, if the party refuses to comply with a court order, so it's just not accurate to single out this particular issue the way Pederson does. Heck, there was a guy who spent several years in jail for failure to comply with a court order relating to his divorce. But we don't normally say that jail time is a possibility if you're getting a divorce. Failure to comply with court orders, taken to the extreme, could trigger jail for contempt, but it's extremely rare, and in my opinion it is misleading to give that remote possibility significant weight, the way Pederson does. I think the article sets the appropriate balance. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a google search for updates on the issue of jail time for misgendering. I found one newer source from 2018, a year after the provision came into force. There were no records of anyone going to jail for misgendering, and a statement by a constitutional lawyer that misgendering pronouns, by themselves, would likely not result in much happening, and that jail time for human rights matters is not a possible outcome. I didn't find anything more recent relating to the jail issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the article say that jail time is likely to result from misgendering. Maybe that's Peterson's position, but that's not in the article today. What I am suggesting is that we avoid the misleading way in which the article currently juxtaposes Peterson with legal experts, with a structure that is along the lines of "Peterson says X, legal experts disagree". They don't disagree that sanctions (in the form of fines) are likely in the case of deliberate repeated misgendering - not any rare or extreme case. Take a look at my edit , which was reverted, for an example of what could resolve the issue, in my opinion. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at your edit, and I disagreed with it, because it conflates the criminal offence with the human rights standard. The first part of the edit, substituting "accidental misuse" for "not using" drastically weakens the standard under the criminal offence of "promoting hatred". The lawyers quoted said that misuse of pronouns would not rise to the level of the criminal offence of hate promotion. The second edit, joining the two sentences with a "but", in my opinion linked the discussion of promoting hatred to the discussion of the Human Rights Act. Those are two separate things. There is no hate speech provision in the Human Rights Act, it's only in the Criminal Code, and joining those two sentences confuses that point. I agree with the revert of your edit. (and, with respect to your comment that there can be "sanctions (in the form of fines)" under the Human Rights Act - there are no fines for a complaint of denial of services on a prohibited ground. Fines are criminal in nature, and go to the state. A complainant who successfully demonstrates a denial of service on a prohibited ground will receive civil damages, paid by the respondent to the complainant. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That's incorrect, according to the sources in the article. As I wrote above, legal expert Cossman says "violating the human rights code can ... be punished through fines or non-financial remedies". You'll have to take it up with her, or alternatively, remove anything sourced to her from the article Izzy Borden (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Vice article doesn't directly quote Cossman for that sentence, so it is quite possible she used a phrase like "monetary damages" and they incorrectly paraphrased her. (See this journal article where she writes "violations under human rights codes include monetary damages, non-financial remedies ... and public interest remedies.") Or maybe she did say "fines" when speaking to the reporter. It is not unheard of; both Jared Brown and Jay Cameron referred to "fines" in their senate testimony against C-16. I agree with Buzfuz that it isn't technically a correct way to describe an order to pay damages to an individual, which are compensatory and not punitive in nature. The best available sources (i.e., those not involving quoting people speaking extemporaneously who may be a little loose in their language) correctly refer to the CHRT awarding compensation or damages rather than issuing fines. It's a moot point, since that language isn't in the article, so there is nothing to fix.--Trystan (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)