Cool I watched it. It’s the same thing he said to Parliament and in the materials I linked to, so congrats on wasting my time. As I wrote, Peterson misinterprets OHRC rules, doesn’t account for how the law is implemented, and wrongly thinks that his interpretation of the law also applies to C-16.
I also love how Peterson said he got 40 letters from transgender people who agree with him, but downplays the role of activists who work on transgender rights.
I understand his argument. I just think his argument doesn’t have bearing on the law or how it actually works. He’s constructed a giant slippery slope, as I wrote.
So, no, I don’t have to go down your rabbit hole or address your ridiculous comparison between an anti-discrimination law and forced confessions of all things. You and Peterson and his other supporters have to make your case that the law works like you say it works. But instead you keep demanding that everyone respond to your rhetoric instead of the actual law. It’s a great way to lose a legal debate, as Peterson did.