Happy New Year.

I've got some things to say to junior high and high school students and their parents about the politicization that is occurring in the public school system and what should be done about that.

I have some very radical suggestions, I would say, which I am not putting forth lightly.

I think that it is time for public school students and their parents to actively rebel against the indoctrination that is being offered in the guise of education.

But before such a recommendation can be reasonably offered or considered by its recipients, some careful argumentation and review of recent events is in order.

So please bear with me while I walk through that process.

It's important to get these things right and not to rush.

About a year ago, actually, on September 27th 2000 and 16 I made a series of videos.

One of them criticized a new piece of federal legislation bill see, 16 Bill C 16 is, and I'm reading this directly from the government website and act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

Here's the summary.

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the criminal code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender, identity or expression.

And you clearly set out that evidence that an offense was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Now you may notice on careful reading that the act modifies the criminal code to clearly set out that evidence that an offense was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate extends the purview of what might constitute hate to a degree, that's, I think, completely unacceptable.

But that's the least of the problems with this bill.

You can't really tell what the other problems are, though, unless you go read the policy guidelines that were established by the on Terry Human Rights Commission, which already guide interpretation of similar legislation in Ontario and would be used by the federal government's own admission to guide the interpretation of Bill.

See 16 now, when I made the videos.

I said as much.

I said that there were two fundamental dangers to this bill.

One was that because the on Terry Human Rights Commission is a radical and dangerous organization bent on producing the most punitive possible policies in the pursuit of its radical neo Marxist postmodern agenda, that the legislation would introduce the possibility of persecution or, let's say, prosecution for so called offenses that should never be considered within the proper domain of legal prosecution Now.

I also objected to the manner in which the relationship between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation was written into the Ontario Human rights commissions policies and therefore essentially into the law, pointing out that the law now demands that we consider those four different phenomena as essentially independent when they are in fact very tightly causally late and as well that the claim that's being made both implicit and explicit.

That those four sets of phenomena differ within each strata as a consequence of socialization, in fact is also wrong, but also undermines the primary arguments that transsexual people and gay people used to buttress the reality of the our identity.

Namely, that they have a biological proclivity that directs them towards such identities, expressions and orientations.

I pointed all of those things out and that we were in danger of legislating compelled speech in relationship to preferred pronounce, which are the pronouns that people who very in their gender identity, hypothetically want to use to be referred to.

I pointed out that we were in danger of making compelled speech something required in Canada, so that for the first time in our history and in the history of the British Common law, the government would be able to legislate the content of your speech, which is quite different than legislating what you can't say, which is already something that's very dangerous.

There are a variety of consequences of making this video, which were much more dramatic than I presume they might be.

Although I did know that Bill See 16 posed a genuine threat to the integrity of our state now.

The first consequence was that a very large number of faculty members at the University of Toronto decided that I had made the campus an unsafe place by my statements and petitioned the university to do something about that.

And then there were a number of demonstrations.

And then the University of Toronto sent me two letters telling me that I was violating their policies and probably the law in Ontario, which was something I had warned about, by the way, because the law was written in such a dismal manner and over inclusive manner to ensure that even criticizing it could be prosecuted under its guidelines, let's say.

And then there was a debate that the university held where defenders of Bill See 16 insisted that I was all the terrible things that I had been called and that I was misinterpreting the bill and that the dangers that I foresaw as a consequence of its implementation would never manifest themselves rather than to address himself to the scientific evidence concerning gender identity and expression.

And by adopting rhetorical strategies more common to Breitbart news dot com than a university professor's lecture, Dr Peterson goes on to discredit the very constructs on political grounds instead of on grounds provided by scholarly evidence that these constructs are in no particular order leftist, radical and politically correct.

On the subject of pronouns and gender expression, Dr Peterson is emphatic.

That quote, I don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronounce I used to address them.

I won't do it for the vast majority of people.

He goes on to say, gender identity and sexual orientation, and I guess he means sex are the same thing.

End quote.

As for the definition of transgender, Dr Peterson claims that, and I quote, I don't believe that they thes people.

These terms stand for good things.

I think that these people use these terms as a pretense that they stand for good things as a pretext for them to continue their nefarious activities.

End quote.

Well, this is hardly the stuff of academic scholarship.

And now I should say to the university's credit, by the way, that once they got on their feet after sending me the original two letters, they seem to have come down quite strongly on the side of free speech in the last year.

And so that's something positive that's come out of all of this.

But and the truth of the matter was that I am none of those things and that I had read the bill and its surrounding policies extremely carefully and what's worse, actually understood them and that what I had done was merely communicate my understanding.

And I would say my proper, an accurate understanding of the bill to a public that was actually quite willing to take the time to investigate the issue and follow it carefully.

The press initially was very ambivalent towards me.

But as some of the leading journalists in Canada, including Christie, Blatchford, Antonella, are too so and eventually Conrad Black and also Margaret went early, listen to the videos that I had made it and then actually read that policies in question.

They understood that the bill did in fact pose a threat, just free speech in the manner that I had described and came out very strongly on my side.

Now I have some sympathy for the fact that I was tarred with a variety of epithets immediately after having made the video, because I was warning that there was something not good going on in Canada, and whenever anybody warrants that, you should be skeptical of them because Canada has been a very stable and well functioning state for a very long period of time.

So when someone pops out of his rabbit hole or comes out of his swamp, Let's safe and says There's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

The proper response is no, there's probably something wrong with you and then the next investigative strategies to say Well, here is a bunch of things that are typically wrong with people that have something wrong with, um, bigoted transphobic, racist, etcetera.

Maybe you're one of those things, and so we'll throw those at you and see if they stick, because if they stick, then we don't have to pay any attention to the problem and maybe it will go away.

But the truth of the matter is that I was and am none of those things.

I was fortunate because there was evidence that that was the case.

I have videotaped virtually everything I've said to students in the entire 25 years of my university tenure, and so everything that I thought was a matter of public record and I had posted it on YouTube in the form of hundreds of lectures.

Not only is there nothing scurrilous and self damning in those videos, it's quite the contrary.

People have found the content extremely useful from a psychological perspective, and that's now up into the millions of people.

And so it turns out that I'm not the bad guy of the supporters of this bill's imagination.

Now, the other tactic employed by the people who have Bean unhappy about what I have been saying is too assumed that I'm an all right or even a far right figure, which is on accusation that has been leveled at me many times in the last year.

And there's also a reason for that.

The reason for that is that the group of people to the right of the radical left is a very large group.

And it includes everyone from Socialists, say, of the classic 19 seventies type all the way to the most far right Nazis imaginable, who are all united in their opposition to the radical left agenda and thus form what you might describe as a group by default.

Now, the fact that some of the members of a group by default are unsavory characters does not demonstrate that all of the members of that group are of that type.

Now it's very convenient for the radical left and much more straightforward than actually formulating arguments to assume that everyone who doesn't think exactly what they think is some sort of monstrous figure, but it happens to not be the case.

There are many reasonable people, in fact, a vast majority of reasonable people who are firmly opposed to the agenda of the radical left, and it's completely unreasonable to lump them in with all right, far right and not see type figures.

Part of the reason that the postmodern neo Marxist find themselves compelled to do so is because they believe that they are correct and that they have right on their side.

And if it turns out that anyone reasonable is objecting, then the fact of that reasonable opposition would make it necessary for some things to be rethought.

And so it's much easier.

And I would also say, much more gratifying to an inner sense of resentment and vengefulness to merely tar everyone who doesn't agree with the same brush and the argument be damned.

This brings us to the most fundamental reason why there has bean such vociferous opposition generated in relationship to what I've been saying, and that's because I got the interpretation of Bill See 16 and its surrounding policies and the pernicious, postmodern neo Marxist doctrine that gave rise to it, essentially correct.

And it's in the best interest of those who are pushing this pernicious doctor and its legislative consequences to do everything possible to discredit me so that the facts of the matter remain hidden from the general public and perhaps even from those who have formulated the doctor in themselves.

So I read Bill See 16 and the surrounding policies that would guide its interpretation, as formulated by the on Terry Human Rights Commission.

And then I informed the public to the best of my ability about the content of that legislation and policies and its intent, and we've outlined the consequences.

Two major questions remain.

Is what I had to say to be trusted.

And if I was correct in my analysis and diagnosis, what steps should be taken now, if any, to rectify the situation?

So let's begin with the question of whether or not my interpretation is to be trusted, and we'll start that with, uh, brief overview and then an analysis of the recent events at Wilfred Laureate University, as you may know, or may not know but should know.

At Wilfred Laurier University recently, a teaching assistant named Lindsey Shepherd found herself in hot water because she had the temerity to play.

A video clip from TV owes the agenda in the class that she was charged with.

Conducted as a consequence of playing the video clip, she was brought in front of a disciplinary panel consisting of three individuals.

Nathan, Rambo Cana, Herbert Pimlott and Adria.

Joel Rambo.

Cana and Pimlott are professors in the communications department at Wilfred Laurier University, and Andrea Joel is an administrator who was hired as a consequence of legislation introduced by Kathleen Wynne to conduct exactly the sort of disciplinary investigation that she sat in on.

Now.

Lindsey Shepherd had the presence of mind and the fear to tape the disciplinary hearing, and after the story about what had happened was released, Lindsay released the entire audiotape and caused a national and international scandal.

It would be interested to see the original complaint for complaints because, like, I don't really have any context like what exactly?

Their problem was?

Sorry.

Sorry to drop.

Could I just ask you anything to just provide us with a story?

Yeah, I just like to hear the whole like your wood.

What?

What?

What took place so if you just give us Yeah, And then and then sorry, but I just feel that I'm just sitting in Yeah.

Okay, So, um, way have to teach about grammar.

And in the Pearson book, there was a section about pronouns and using, like, gender language, so I wanted to make it more engaging.

So what I did is we were talking about, um, in papers, using hey, as I was, like, a singular.

And then we're also talking about, like, his and hers and like, how to construct sentences with that.

And then to contextualize that I brought up like a YouTube debate.

So debate with both sides during Peterson sides, and this fellow named Nicholas Matt who is also a profit, UT and they did you have a name of you?

It was from the agenda with Steve Pagan.

What's in a name?

Potentially a great deal.

University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson has a fight on his hands after objecting to propose legislation that he says would violate his freedom of speech by forcing him to address transgender people using the pronouns of their choosing.

Joining us now to better understand the issue and debate what's at stake in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Sharon Meyer, Transgender pundit and Youtuber in the nation's capital.

Kyle Kirk, Up, professor of law at the University of Ottawa and here in Studio.

The aforementioned Jordan Peterson, professor.

Psychology, University of Toronto.

Nicholas Matt, Lecturer, transgender studies at U.

Of T.

And Mary Rogan, whose article entitled Growing Up Trans, is featured in the October issue of The Walrus magazine.

Good to have you three here and our two friends and points beyond.

We appreciate everybody being on the program for what is, I think, one of the hottest topics in the country today.

Professor Peterson, and it's all because of you.

And I think before we go any further with our conversation here, I want to give people a sense of how hot this has got, starting on the downtown campus of the University of Toronto.

Well, as you can see that your own it's a free speech are capable of making a Lord's inarticulate noise.

Free speech is the mechanism by which we keep our society bunch.

By doing that, you're pulling going to post this online that you would like people to not to be to be more accommodating of trans people and people of color at your events.

In future, I was like, I'm a person of color, and I felt very common here.

There have been multiple, multiple recorded instances trans people killing themselves because because they are because they're lobbying, integrated into society.

If it wasn't for this law, didn't I ask you to be with you?

Why do you have the authority to determine whether or not an individual is worthy of you using their pronoun?

Like if I asked you, would you please use the components for me?

What?

What?

It would depend on what you want us to jump.

Those are my pronoun.

Okay, with indulgence of everybody else on the program.