Bill C-16 – A Transgression Against The Basic Right To Freedom Of Speech

I am making this statement in a final attempt to dissuade the Canadian Senate from passing what I believe to be the most egregious bill this country has ever seen. Neither my words in the parliament, nor the testimony of various legal experts seem to have opened your eyes to the truth. Bill C-16 is a transgression against the basic right to freedom of speech, and I will not allow the very language I use to be dictated by a piece of legislation.

Let me make my position clear. I do not condone discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity, and neither do I wish to undermine the rights of the transgender community. My grievances lie in the notion that the English language can be arbitrarily changed to represent a social constructionist view. Of course, you might be wondering why I so obstinately refuse to address people by their chosen pronouns, why I refuse to adhere to the norms of “human kindness”, but that’s where the crux of the matter lies. It lies in the fact that I am being forced to do so by law, which goes against every tenet of free speech that is so intrinsic to our legal system. Freedom of speech is the basis of civilization, the underlying means that human beings use to create societies and maintain stability. Hence I believe, and I am not alone in my belief, that compromising these basic values under the guise of moral posterity and social justice is extremely dangerous. As a clinical psychologist, and in my experience as a Professor of psychology, I can testify that maintaining the principles of truthful and un-coerced speech is more important than “respecting” my students by referring to them by their self-identified pronouns. For instance, in my own psychology classes, I have noticed that the proclivity is for students is to avoid openly assessing gender roles and stereotypes, so as not to risk offending a fellow student. In the wake of post modernism and leftism, it is becoming more and more difficult for biologists and psychologists to research and do their jobs. The culture of victimization has been so deeply implanted in our society, that it has even begun to pervade the academic pursuit of knowledge and truth. In your never-ending quest for ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’, you have failed to recognize that you are curbing the basic human right to freedom of speech and expression. This law prevents a large number of people from expressing their personal ideologies, purely because their views do not coincide with popular opinion. Let us assume for a moment that society is this oppressive pyramid like structure that the radical leftists make it out to be. In that case, what do the so-called oppressed classes have other than their freedom of speech, other than their power to express what they believe in? And is that not exactly what this bill, to a large extent, is trying to take away from us?

My other principal concern lies in the notion that identity is something that can defined subjectively. Any worthwhile developmental psychologist can confirm that this notion has very little relevance from a biological standpoint. The only people with this perspective on identity derive their arguments from an ideological point of view, rather than an intellectual or scientific one. I do not believe that the Senate realizes the grave risk of introducing this misconstrued, post-modern idea of identity into the legal and political systems of our country. Words, especially words engrained in our legal systems, have very significant meaning and power. This bill, masquerading under the pretense of “defending transgender rights”, is merely a manifestation of radical leftist ideology in our legal system. It represents the views of a microscopic section of society, and the Canadian Human Rights Act should not be altered to give a certain minority the linguistic upper hand. I hope that my words, regardless of whether they have any effect on the law, manage to open your eyes to the dangers of allowing ideologies to grow unopposed. In order to think clearly, in order to form opinions, and thoughts and orient yourself in this world, you have to risk offending people. And I will not apologize for my thoughts.