Western Universities are brain washing centres with those in the know knowing it.
Or more to the point-studies in the humanities field are mostly dead beat dead ends only useful as political tools.
So it comes as no surprise to discover that the culture of intimidation and censorship at these institutions of higher learning would make the old United Soviet Socialist Russia proud.
This scene plays out all the time; a professor criticises an aspect of so-called human rights culture and is suitably cautioned- with the loss of his position used as the stick.
Remorseful he issues a grovelling apology- with a promise to commit hara-kiri to save face- just kidding-and that’s the end of it.
But occasionally someone will challenge the system and its dogmas.
Like Jordan Petersen- Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto in Canada.
It started with Bill C-16, 2016- an amendment to the Canadian Rights Act and the Criminal Code which legislates for the use of trans-gender pronouns promoted as part of an anti-discriminatory drive.
But the fallout from this legislation will weigh heavily on free speech with censure and censorship at universities at odds with its traditions of freedom of expression.
Petersen has been dubbed as the man who’s single-handedly reignited Canada’s cultural war- but one thing’s for sure- he’s not afraid to speak his mind.
On the topic of gender-neutral pronouns he has this to say; those are the vanguard of a post-modern radical leftist ideology.
And BillC-16; it’s an assault on biology and an implicit assault on the idea of the objective world.
His thoughts on the Ontario Human rights Commission? ; It’s the most dangerous organization in Canada.
But most of all Petersen rejects the idea of using those pronouns out-of-hand as he regards it as a left wing attack on free speech.
He has been reprimanded twice by the University for his outspoken opposition to the bill noting his refusal to comply with its requirements.
He’s also been involved in a number of debates with other professors and students on campus over the legislation and has produced a number of you tube videos setting out his views.
But as much as progressives love to dismiss him as a typical conservative it’s the quality of his arguments that stand out compared with the sea of mindless rhetoric usually spewed-out in these discussions- for want of a better word.
And let’s be honest- a bill like this has enormous implications-with freedom of expression being just one casualty-although it’s a big deal at that.
Normally these types of socio-political arguments are mind-numbingly stupid-with supporters using obscure talking points to force opponents to argue against false premises-clouding the issue and avoiding the real principles at stake.
But these social justice warriors have met their match in Petersen- he’s no intellectual slouch-rational and succinct to a fault he cuts through the fog and dismisses what passes for argument amongst irrational ideologues.
Right off the bat these ideas are based on the same authoritarianism of Soviet communism and its dictated from the top down approach.
But that aside- let’s look at some of the logical arguments he raises; calling the pronoun issue one of ‘compelled speech’ and unacceptable because both the right of the speaker and the right of the listener must be taken into account.
The right of the listener to be objectively informed without undue influence from obscure sources is also of utmost importance.
Most of all if speech is compelled it isn’t the speaker doing the talking but some other entity.
Based on this Petersen regards the bill as unconstitutional first and foremost.
He goes onto say Bill C-16 writes social constructionism into law.
Petersen believes people can be imprisoned for not complying with the law- as human tribunals have been given the right to hold people in contempt.
Indeed what would be the intention of enacting such a law- with its human rights code and hate speech provisions if not to prosecute?
As Petersen says the university itself is responsible and liable for allowing him to voice his opposition to the bill on campus and that’s why they have to shut him up.
It isn’t necessary for someone to lay a complaint either-it just needs to be highlighted and brought to the attention of the authorities who can then proceed to prosecute.
Also- it makes no difference if the ‘hate speech’ is unintentional as it all boils down to outcomes.
So the rule of law as its traditionally understood has been altered.
He dismisses the argument of the bill’s supporters who say it’s a mark of respect to use the pronoun of someone’s choice saying; he and she are not marks of respect but casual terms.
It’s just simple categorization.
There’s not anything individual or characteristic of respect about them.
On top of which no one has the right to demand another’s respect.
Identity is not subjectively defined either- as he claims-its educated judgement about oneself coupled with the educated judgement of others.
And yes- others do get a say as is the mark in any civilized society.
Petersen maintains the crux of the left is not about compassion but resentment which is also a tried and tested tactic of communist trade unionist Saul Alinsky.
He defines social justice warriors as those who have weaponised compassion.
This bill has not been challenged in the Canadian Supreme Court as yet and only time will tell how this issue pans out.