Jordan Peterson slays Trudeau’s Bill C-16

Professor Jordan Peterson articulated the reasons why Canada’s Bill C-16 (protection of gender expression and gender identity under the Human Rights Act)   is so reprehensible. Less so on grounds of ‘intent’ per se but the fact that it is grounded on unsubstantiated research with zero scientific backing and loose ideology rather than reality. Listening to the Canadian Senate ask questions, Peterson manages to make perfectly reasonable retorts to the identity politics driven nature of the bill. He even goes as far as to say that the people proposing it hadn’t even consulted those with “non-standard genders” to get their feelings on the matter. Peterson said he’d received countless letters to back this up

In typical Trudeau cabinet style, the issues surrounding the identity and gender bill were mostly assumed positions. In much the same way as Bill M-103 operates it is a law which is one way only. One can bet that if a person identifying as their biological gender (99% of us) complained that his or her feelings had been hurt by a transgender person who didn’t acknowledge their gender identity/expression it would be thrown out before it even reached a courtroom. Had the person who identified as a  “non-standard” gender complained the case in the reverse thennthe book would be thrown at the perpetrators. This is the problem. A law must have exactly the same application to everyone rather than a selective bias to protect a few.

No one is questioning a basic requirement for basic human rights. However Peterson makes the point very clear that the very people who proposed the law are by far and away the least appropriate people to enforce it. It is a law that seeks to muzzle free speech. To curb language. Peterson labours the point that the state shouldn’t have a right to prosecute people on the basis of a law that essentially forces them to pretend to accept someone’s subjective opinion on what they happen to identify with. Ironically Peterson tells the panel that the law actually works against “non-standard” genders because when they’re not part of the process they feel misrepresented.

The biggest flaw with such laws is the idea that the argument (as Peterson refuted so well) is so weak on its own that it must be made a statute of law to defend what can’t support with rational debate. The day that diversity has to be indoctrinated is the day we know it has no basis. Much like the hypocrisy surrounding white South African farmers. Many on the left proved their own inner racism and twisted logic by suggesting their skin colour precluded them from the same basic human rights afforded to the groups it peddles constantly. That’s the beauty of identity politics. No solutions are ever sought. Perpetual grievance is the goal in order to ensure equality in misery.

Diversity in Japan


Mizuho Bank was one of the first Japanese companies to openly embrace diversity and LGBT in a pride parade it promoted around 6 months ago . All the placards of ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘inclusive society’ were displayed. The bank says it is the first in Japan to offer products which include housing loans that can be taken out jointly by same-sex partners, as well as principal guaranteed trust products — under which assets can be passed on to a same-sex partner.

According to an online survey by Dentsu in 2015, 7.6% of the population identified as LGBT. LGBT is not necessarily frowned upon at all. In fact many celebrities make a small fortune for being so. Matsuko Deluxe is a great example. She maintained her top spot in last year’s edition of the Nikkei Entertainment’s annual “Talent Power Ranking“.

For a culture that appears on the outside excessively conservative, variety shows embrace the very characters that shatter that myth. In such an orderly, consensus driven society their popularity stems from the fact they so brazenly buck the cultural stereotypes. After 20 years living here there would seem to be little evidence of blanket ‘discrimination’ against LGBT communities. Japan has existed more on a “don’t tell” mentality.

In the workplace more Japanese companies are embracing ‘nadeshiko’ to promote women. It was not uncommon to have a Japanese company look to marry off females to the legions of salarymen. So women were often overlooked for promotion for fear they’d raise kids and quit. While a terribly weak excuse to be sure one would hope that Japanese managers today  focus on hiring the best talent rather than hit predetermined gender quotas. There are plenty of talented Japanese women who can comfortably be selected on ability not gender. Although some will argue hard quotas will be needed so as to make companies feel comfortable they aren’t seen as ‘behind the times.’ Having said that government guidelines saw 90% of corporates adopt independent directors on their boards. Peer pressure seemingly works here.

However following ‘guidelines’ for the sake of it makes little sense. Were females more competent than the similarly ranked males on a 3:1 ratio in one company why not promote on that basis rather than a state suggested 2:1? If another company saw men 3:1 more skilled than women why wouldn’t a company want to rationally promote on those grounds? Indeed if companies look to succeed they should make decisions based on what is best for profitability and shareholders.

One corporate was asked this question of hiring more women at the AGM.  The CEO said he’d be only to glad to do so provided he could source suitable candidates. Hard to hit targets if the slew of applicants is 99% male. Indeed the company hires based on what it perceives as best fit for the business.

Things are changing in Japan on many fronts.

With marriage rates dwindling and childbirth nudging the 1mn mark per annum, more women are choosing to put the career first and have kids later and later.  Shotgun weddings now number 25% of all marriages and several companies are capitalizing on this trend by offering express matrimonial services. Society is changing. Note the report we wrote on the breakdown in the ‘nuclear family’ which tables in detail those seismic shifts.

Diversity in Japan. Far from wearing pussyhats and protesting with hostility there would seem to be many awaiting some centralized guidelines. While most would expect CM to tear strips off Mizuho for lining up for politicizing the workplace for once I’d credit it for “PROACTIVITY”. Indeed it wasn’t so long ago that then PM Koizumi had to tell corporate Japan that it was ok to take ties off in sweltering summer with power shortages in what was coined as “cool biz”.  Such a decision of common sense couldn’t be formulated by proactive management.

Mizuho’s credit doesn’t so much revolve around its appeals for more diversity rather for making a bold step to decide to do something like this without waiting for external guidance. With more internally driven open mindedness like this it paints a better role model for creating change.

This does not call for indoctrination of social ideals in the workplace. By all means provide hiring managers with better training on identifying talent but do not force identity politics in the office. Individual ability trumps identity every time.

So full marks to Mizuho. The message for Japan Inc to grasp from it is proactivity and common sense, not awaiting to be told what to do by some bureaucracy that is probably a worse offender of the guidelines it will inevitably seek to push.

Oxford giving extra time in exams to help women


In the fight for equality, Oxford University is allowing students ‘extra time’ during exams to help more females pass The only thing that rings in the mind is what an insult to women to think they need a leg up to make up for their supposed shortcomings in dealing with time pressure. More cultural Marxism pervading schools. The Telegraph reports

exam times were increased in a bid to improve the low scores of women, it has emerged…Students taking maths and computer science examinations in the summer of 2017 were given an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers, after dons ruled that “female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure”. There was no change to the length or difficulty of the questions...It was the first time such steps had been taken. In previous years, the percentage of male students awarded first class degrees was double that of women and in 2016 the board of examiners suggested that the department make changes to improve women’s grades.”

One wonders why Oxford  bothers with extra time and hand women first class degrees with a simpler test. What is the male to female ratio of students? Is that a factor? If men graduated with first class honors at double the rate of female students and it happened that men outnumbered women 2:1 then the system is surely showing no perceived bias.

What next? Give LGBT students an extra 30 minutes? Deduct 15 minutes for Caucasians? Or if you’re a disabled transgender aboriginal Muslim do you get as long as you like with the answer booklet to make sure of 100%? Sound extreme? 10 years ago if someone said women should get 15 minutes extra time people would think you’re mad. Anything goes. The ability to shut down freedom of speech and freedom of thought are rife through the education system. Full marks to them. Afterall we’ve happily submitted to accepting this nonsense.

It is utter lunacy to think that the only way to address equality is by stopping it dead in its tracks by blatant acts of educational vandalism. For Oxford to woefully submit to such stupidity speaks volumes about its future as a reputable institution that wants to foster free thinking.

One has to question why girls need a leg up when, as an example, the NSW HSC results for 2017 revealed:

76 girls snapped up first place certificates compared with 44 boys.”

Surely the boys have a right to 15 minutes extra to address this imbalance!

What is more egregious than receiving $800,000?


The $650,000 of that sum paid to the lawyers of a transgender student, Ms. (Mr) Ashton Whitaker, who claimed discrimination against the school which prevented her from using the male bathrooms and calling her the incorrect pronoun. She also added that she suffered from anxiety, depression, migraines and other health problems related to dehydration because she had tried to avoid restroom trips by drinking less water.

Whitaker said, “The idea of using the girls restroom was humiliating and there was no way I could do it…If I were to use the gender-neutral restrooms, I would also stand out from everyone else with a big label on me that said ‘transgender.”

Doesn’t that quote sort of say it all? Whitaker wants the school to accept her as a male yet the idea of using gender neutral restrooms would label her as transgender! Indeed if she is asking the school teachers to call her male pronouns and to be allowed to use the male toilets isn’t she labeling herself in front of her class? Wouldn’t male students who saw her use their bathrooms already know it was because she was transgender?

However this court victory only opens the floodgates to more victim based ambulance chasing. For lawyers it becomes a field day. The days of “have you been injured at work?” will be replaced by “have you had your feelings hurt?” At $650k a pop that is easy money for lawyers.

Should all schools be forced to change curriculums, indoctrinate other students, parents and teachers as well as go to considerable expense to accomodate people like Whitaker? Should parents who wish their kids to study in schools that aren’t caught up in this nonsense be free to send their kids to boys or girls only education without the state determining bathroom policy? Don’t they have just as much right to demand that as a transgender student from demanding the opposite? Yet the ruling is moving toward a scenario where parents who do not accept this be labeled bigots and persecuted for holding conservative views.

Let’s think about this. For girls who ‘identify’ as boys or vice versa why must we be dictated to by law to ‘pretend’ to accept them for what they subjectively (not biologically) feel themselves to be, assuming we know in the first place? California has laws that can jail one for using the wrong pronoun. This is the slippery slope.

Perhaps the solution – if the demand is high enough –  is transgender only schools where people like Whitaker can study, be called whatever pronoun that makes them happy and pee in the bathroom of their choice. They can have their own sanctuary. Why should the students (and parents) of the school that paid the $800,000 settlement suffer from a cutback in educational tools, teachers or other facilities because of a student’s hurt feelings? $800,000 would buy a lot of ‘useful’ equipment for furthering education.

To give a great example of how weak the liberal argument is for the slippery slope of caving in to transgender in schools and general life look at this interview of Tucker Carlson and DNC senior advisor Zac Petkanas. It is frighteningly naive.

Today’s ‘civil rights’ movement is all about removing them from the majority. No one is arguing that transgender people don’t deserve equal status (they have it). It is only because they demand special treatment which once again throws into the fore the problem with institutionalising policy which creates the very opposite to what ‘diversity’ crowd proclaim they promote. Honestly what has gender, race or sexual preference have to do with ‘performance’ in the schoolyard or workplace? Yet increasingly we are asked to provide it to prospective employers who fear being persecuted if they don’t get the ‘balance’ right.

What next?


The Queensland Government has decided to remove ‘gender’ from licenses going forward after ‘pressure’ from the LGBTI community.  In what can only be described as a politically correct own goal by the Dept of Transport & Main Roads, surely the best way to pander to all of those minorities would have been to offer the choice of the 63 genders that are available. Imagine the amount of tax dollars we can waste on new sensitivity training for police to make sure that the can ‘protect and serve’ feelings. Or maybe that is the aim to create more state jobs?

What is a poor highway patrol officer (usually operating alone) who pulls over a driver over for speeding on the highway to do? What if he thinks the driver is over the limit when questioning him/her/zie? The bearded driver who looks male can pull out the genderless card and accuse the officer of using the wrong pronoun and request that an LGBT police officer administer any breath test procedure. In fact the driver might just claim an injustice has been served.

So will highway patrols be forced to carry a male, female and LGBT officer on pursuits with a fourth ‘independent observer’ from the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure that feelings of drivers aren’t hurt?

We keep on being told diversity is our strength. Indeed it would be true were it not for repeated state indoctrination. We only need to look at how celebrating diversity works in places like California where one can be jailed for simply using the wrong pronoun. Welcome to the slippery slope.