Jordan Peterson on bill c-16: what the evidence says · JRE #877
SUBJECT: BILL C-16
The short answer
Peterson claims Bill C-16 altered Canada's Criminal Code by adding gender identity to the hate-speech category, arguing this proves the law has real legal teeth. The enacted statute, S.C. 2017, c. 13, confirms this: section 3 of the Act amended the Criminal Code's hate propaganda provisions by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318(4), which applies to the offence of advocating genocide and, through section 319, to the offences of publicly inciting hatred and wilfully promoting hatred.
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
Yes. They wouldn't have changed the damn criminal. They put it in the hate speech category and altered the criminal code. It's as simple as that.
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
Peterson asserts that Bill C-16 amended Canada's Criminal Code and placed gender identity in the hate speech category. The enacted statute, S.C. 2017, c. 13, confirms this: section 3 of the Act amended the Criminal Code's hate propaganda provisions by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318(4), which applies to the offence of advocating genocide and, through section 319, to the offences of publicly inciting hatred and wilfully promoting hatred. The Act also added gender identity or expression to the hate-motivation aggravating factor in the sentencing provision, section 718.2(a)(i), and to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The current consolidated text of section 318(4) still lists gender identity or expression, citing the 2017, c. 13 amendment. Peterson's core factual assertion is therefore well-supported: C-16 did alter the Criminal Code, not only the Human Rights Act. However, the Department of Justice's explanatory materials describe these provisions as covering hate propaganda and hate-motivated crime, and nothing in the amendments themselves criminalizes misuse of pronouns, so the change does not by itself establish the compelled-speech consequences Peterson argued elsewhere in the discussion.