Addressing the legalities of “political correctness” and freedom of speech on campus

If you type “University of Toronto” into Google, the most frequent result to appear as of late is “Peterson,” the infamous professor at U of T’s St. George campus. His controversial opinion on political correctness has garnered lavish attention across several publications, making both local and national news headlines. The public three-part video series published on his personal YouTube channel aims to criticize the anti-racism and anti-bias training mandated by Human Resources staff. He also decries Bill C-16, which proposes to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds for harassment and discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Peterson states, “I don’t recognise another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.”

Freedom of speech and political correctness are two terms that recur throughout the ongoing narrative of uproar and protest both against and in support of Peterson’s claims, so let’s define them. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-doms, “[everyone] has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expres-sion, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

For the purposes of examining Peterson’s comments, I’d like to focus on an individual’s right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Under chartered legislation, “[the] s. 2(b) protection of freedom of expression protects everyone’s right to hold any opinion or belief and to express those beliefs, through their words, actions or any other means of expression so long as the expression is not violent in form or in content. An assault on another person would not be defendable as an expression deserving protec-tion.” Let’s hold on to that notion.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines political correctness as “the avoidance of forms of expres-sion or actions that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” The concept of expression persists throughout both definitions, and in its purest form can be defined as the action of making known one’s thoughts or feelings. The critical aspect excluded from both definitions is what constitutes this marginalization, assault, and violence in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the people over which it governs.

Purposefully misgendering someone is an act of violence. It is a form of hate speech. The Canadian Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimina-tion based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. It only seems to follow that discrimination based on gender identity should be prohibited next. The Ontario Human Rights Code is more ambiguous in its definitions  it forbids discrimination against and advocates restitution for hateful propaganda that disputes an individual’s “dignity, feelings and self-respect.” Purposely misgendering a person could certainly be classified as a violation of these terms.

Peterson goes on to state that “[it’s] not obvious to [him] how [someone] can be both because [gender] by definition [is divided into] binary categories.” However, any undergraduate student studying the humanities can attest to the commonplace philosophy that gender is a social construct. This isn’t just the opinion of a Tumblr-savvy “social justice warrior” either. Prior to the eighteenth century, the human body was predominantly conceptualised in terms of ambiguity, permeability and inherent fluidity. Following the research and publication of Jacques-Louis Moreau, a two-sex model of human anatomy gained popularity, that eventually lead to further exploration into the differences between bodies being labelled either as strictly female or male. Peterson decrying this notion of gender fluidity has become the forefront of the conversation surrounding free speech on campus. The free speech rally on October 11 drew the attention of protestors, the media, as well as the Toronto Police Force. Students earnestly attending the rally took the presence of the protesters against Peterson’s obstinate comments as an attack on their personal right to express their thoughts, opinions and beliefs. Several students shared personal stories of adversity and oppres-sion that corroborated their support for uncon-tested expression of beliefs.

However, it is crucial to note that the group of activists who gathered in response to the rally are not contesting an individual’s right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-doms because this very same declaration validates their right to protest as the right to peaceful assembly. In having Peterson speak at the rally as the epitome of free speech, the issue became falsely dichotomized between those who are pro versus anti free speech, when this isn’t at all the case. At its core, this is clearly a dispute between those who believe in the right of non-binary, transgender and intersex students to define their own identities versus those who do not.

As a straight, white, cisgendered person, I am aware of my position on the outside of this conver-sation. I have never identified with a gender that wasn’t assigned to me at birth or no gender at all. I have never had to endure being told that these understandings about myself are invalid. I can, however, recognize the harmful effects of a power-ful institution, such as the University of Toronto, failing to intervene and to uphold the policies of “diversity, inclusion, and equal respect” they claim to exalt. By failing to address the consequences of a tenured professor’s opinions, the university is effectively validating Peterson’s belief that he has the right to define others’ bodies as he sees fit. Peterson’s blatant claim that “[he is] not politically correct” by definition means he does not take active measures to avoid harmful, marginalizing language which should not be tolerated by an institution that prides itself on a diverse student body. If, by law, verbal abuse is considered to be a form of violence –which is the case under federal and provincial charters of rights –then Peterson’s comments cannot be advocated for simply as freedom of speech.

Image courtesy of Ashlee Redmond