Bill C-16 on the Joe Rogan Experience
5 fact-checked claims across 2 episodes · Nov 2016 to Jan 2022 · updated Jul 29, 2026
Bill C-16 became a Joe Rogan Experience fixture in November 2016, when Jordan Peterson appeared on episode #877 weeks after his viral objections to the bill. Over nearly three hours he told Rogan that declining to use alternative gender pronouns was already a crime in Canada, that the Ontario Human Rights Code made his speech illegal, and that the law itself encoded the idea that identity has no biological foundation. Those claims launched a debate that still shapes how listeners understand the bill.
The record since then is more precise. Bill C-16 received royal assent on June 19, 2017, months after that conversation was recorded. Its enacted text adds "gender identity or expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code's hate propaganda and sentencing provisions, and it mentions pronouns nowhere. The checks below, from #877 and his 2022 return on #1769, split: parts of Peterson's account match the enacted text, and parts do not.
Most claims
- Jordan Peterson (5)
Related topics
What does Bill C-16 actually say?
The enacted statute (S.C. 2017, c. 13) does two things. It adds gender identity or expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and it adds the same phrase to the Criminal Code's definition of "identifiable group" for hate propaganda (section 318(4)) and to the hate-motivation sentencing factor (section 718.2(a)(i)). On this narrow point Peterson was largely right: his statement on #877 that C-16 altered the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions matches the enacted text. But the Department of Justice's materials confirm that nothing in those amendments criminalizes pronoun use. More statutory claims are collected in our fact checks on law and legal claims hub.
Does Bill C-16 make misgendering a crime?
No. In #877 Peterson asserted that not using alternative pronouns was already a crime, a description the law does not support. The Canadian Human Rights Act is civil law enforced through complaints and tribunal remedies, not prosecution, and C-16 created no new criminal offence. His comparison to racial epithets also inverted the law: Criminal Code section 319 already made wilful promotion of hatred against groups defined by race punishable by up to two years. The real exposure was provincial and civil. The University of Toronto warned that refusing students' pronouns could breach the Ontario Human Rights Code, which Peterson glossed as against the Ontario Human Rights Code, so also illegal: a misleading equation, since a Code breach brings tribunal remedies in defined contexts, not criminal charges.
Does the law say gender has no biological basis?
Peterson told Rogan that the idea that identity has no biological foundation is built into the law, naming Bill C-16 and New York City's pronoun rules. The statute does not back this up: the Canadian text contains no statement about biology, and Justice Canada says the terms gender identity and gender expression were intentionally left undefined. The kernel of truth sits in New York: Commission on Human Rights guidance requires covered entities to use a person's self-identified pronouns regardless of anatomy or sex assigned at birth. That makes self-identification controlling for anti-discrimination purposes, but it is enforcement guidance, not a statutory declaration about the nature of identity. Related claims live in our gender and identity fact check collection.
Was Peterson right that C-16 compels speech?
That framing remains contested. Returning to the show in 2022, Peterson recalled that he opposed Bill C-16 on compelled speech grounds. As a description of his public record it is accurate: he did oppose the bill on those grounds and drew heavy backlash. But legal experts disputed the underlying characterization at the time, noting the bill does not criminalize occasional or accidental pronoun misuse and that such conduct would not meet the threshold for hate speech or discrimination under the Act. The university warning he cites ran on a separate provincial track under Ontario's code. The whole debate starts in Peterson's original November 2016 appearance.
Logged claims
“built built into the laws like bill Bill C-16 in Canada now, and the same in the laws in New York City that govern the use of these gender pronouns. Built into…”
Peterson claims Bill C-16 and New York City pronoun laws have written into them the idea that identity has no biological foundation and is purely subjective.
“because the university regarded that as against the university policies and also against the Ontario Human Rights Code, so also illegal. And as my employers, t…”
Peterson claims that refusing to use preferred gender pronouns is against the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore illegal, and that his employer is legally responsible for everything he says under that legislation.
“So what's happening is the law is already such that not using one of these made-up pronouns is a crime, whereas using a racial epithet isn't.”
Peterson claims Canadian law already makes failing to use alternative gender pronouns a crime while using a racial epithet is not a crime.
“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.”
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.
“When the trans teenagers came after me when I opposed Bill C-16 in Canada on compelled speech grounds, I spent quite a bit”
Peterson claims he opposed Canada's Bill C-16 specifically on the grounds that it compelled speech.