Home»Opinion»Peterson vs Pardy: Fighting the Regressive Left with an Imperfect Advocate

Peterson vs Pardy: Fighting the Regressive Left with an Imperfect Advocate

1
Shares
Pinterest Google+

Should people have the right to decide the gender pronoun by which they are addressed?
 
Professor Bruce Pardy of Queen’s Law and Professor Jordan Peterson – the beleaguered and controversial figure at the centre of a controversy surrounding Bill C-16 – sparred on that question at the Runnymede Society’s inaugural debate.
 
Bill C-16 is a proposed federal law that would include “gender expression” as a protected ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act; a ground presently enumerated in its Ontario counterpart.
 
Professor Peterson’s vociferous criticism of the law and his declared refusal to use gender neutral pronouns caused a fire storm of outrage and complaints at the University of Toronto last year.
 
While the debate itself was wide-ranging – from the proliferation of pronouns, to privacy of the individual, to the limitations on free speech – a common theme emerged: the enforcement of normative values by the state.
 
Enforcement in this instance is not about socially negotiated basic manners and modes of conduct; or the natural method of societal change. Rather, it is the use of the awesome power of the state to bypass social negotiation altogether and compel change through legislative diktat.
 
And on that point, I agree with Professor Peterson.
 
The Code, and the statutory regime devoted to its enforcement, is dedicated to forcing people to adopt norms and values that they do not agree with.
 
As I said in my earlier piece on this topic, there is no issue with the actual use of gender pronouns. As long as the request is reasonably made, there is no value in unnecessarily antagonizing a fellow person by refusing to use an alternate pronoun.
 
But unfortunately, there is a significant segment on the left that is increasingly not interested in negotiating.
 
One name for this segment is the ‘regressive left’.
 
Traditionally, we have associated the left with ‘liberalism’ and ‘progressivism’. And for a time, it was an accurate reflection of the values of the left. But the trend has shifted. Now, many on the left are willing to use illiberal and authoritarian means to enforce their values on others.
 
This is a marked shift away from the traditional banner of liberalism: to debate, to convince, to reform. This new creed is: to silence, to delegitimize, and to direct.
 
These regressive groups have popularized oppressive tactics like labelling contrary views as ‘micro-aggressions’ (a belief that debating controversial issues is a casual form of racism and bigotry) and ‘de-platforming’ (a practice of shutting down debates that trigger ‘micro-aggressions’ or violate ‘safe spaces’).
 
Professor Peterson believes that Bill C-16 is the government effectively adopting the cause of the regressive left. This is a valid and immediate concern, especially on university campuses where the regressive voices are loudest.
 
But Professor Peterson stumbles on three points. First, he misdirects his ire at the expansion of the enumerated grounds when he should in fact focus on the problematic hate speech provisions, which are improperly interpreted and applied.
 
Focusing instead on gender pronouns derails the conversation towards the evolving nature of language and the differences between the questionable binaries of biological sex and socially constructed gender identities – all of which is irrelevant to the core issue.
 
Secondly, he places the blame on the Human Rights regime in its entirety. This alienates the significant majority that applauds the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race or sex or gender. Instead, his focus should have been on the Human Rights Commission, which has in recent years taken on a public policy and advocacy role, and has followed a regressive-left agenda.
 
Finally, Professor Peterson is unnecessarily blustery and forceful in his presentation. This flaw came into sharp relief when juxtaposed with the calm, logical, and surgical precision with which Professor Pardy presented the proposition’s case. Perhaps a toning down of the ostentatious rhetoric is in order.
 
Ultimately, while I agreed with the crux of his concern, Professor Peterson’s greatest opponent was Professor Peterson. His critique is disrupted by his own imprecision and needless roughness.
 
Illiberalism and regressivism is on the rise.
 
Too many on the left are not willing to talk or debate or reason with others. They have forgotten the true values of liberal openness and broad-mindedness. The fact that Professor Pardy had to play devil’s advocate on Monday because no professor who genuinely agreed with the proposition was willing to debate Dr. Peterson, is an indictment of this new ideology.
 
We must stand for progressivism. We must stand for liberalism. We must stand for free and open debate.
 
Professor Peterson is not the greatest spokesperson for this cause, but on Monday a crowd of law students packed the room and a respectful, yet determined, conversation was sparked.
 
Let us keep talking.
 
Editor’s Note: Vlad Krasner presents a piece critical of Jordan Peterson. Find it here.
 
Adnan Subzwari (3L) is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Juris Diction.
 
Disclosure: Adnan Subzwari is a member of the Runnymede Society.

Previous post

Peterson vs Pardy: Dangerous and Misleading Rhetoric

Next post

The World Water Crisis, and What Canada Isn't Doing to Delay It

7 Comments

  1. February 25, 2017 at 11:08 am — Reply

    We absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be exactly
    what I’m looking for. Does one offer guest writers to write content
    available for you? I wouldn’t mind composing a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects
    you write concerning here. Again, awesome weblog!

  2. February 25, 2017 at 9:16 pm — Reply

    Yes! Finally something about tinder dating site.

  3. February 26, 2017 at 2:51 am — Reply

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who has been doing
    a little homework on this. And he actually ordered me
    lunch simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword
    this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to talk about this issue here on your site.

  4. February 26, 2017 at 11:02 pm — Reply

    Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I have really loved browsing your
    blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing in your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!

  5. February 27, 2017 at 9:36 pm — Reply

    It’s in reality a nice and useful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this useful information with us.
    Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

  6. February 28, 2017 at 1:52 pm — Reply

    I have read so many articles or reviews concerning the blogger lovers however this piece of writing is
    really a pleasant article, keep it up.

  7. March 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm — Reply

    An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who
    had been conducting a little homework on this.

    And he in fact bought me dinner due to the fact that I found it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanks for spending the time to talk about this
    topic here on your website.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *