Jordan Peterson moves to the US to escape 'totalitarian hell hole'
Psychiatrist Jordan Peterson has relocated to the United States as the Canadian Parliament considers legislation he believes would transform his home country into a “totalitarian hell hole.”
Peterson, a prominent Canadian psychiatrist, announced on his daughter Mikhaila's podcast earlier this month that he had moved to the United States. “There are decided advantages to being here,” he said, identifying living near his daughter as one benefit of the move.
The world-renowned psychiatrist also cited “new legislation that the liberals are attempting to push through” in Canada, Bill C-63, as another reason for his relocation. He maintained that if the legislation passes, he would be “living in a totalitarian hell hole” had he remained in Canada.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Peterson described the bill as one that “ports to protect children from online harm” but contains a provision establishing a “new extrajudicial system that isn't bound by the rules of legal investigation or guilt, which has an unlimited range of expansion and all the powers of a court and more than any court in Canada has ever had as far as I can see.”
According to Peterson, under the bill, “You'll be able to take someone in front of a provincial magistrate because you're afraid that sometime in the next year, they might commit a hate crime.”
He added that believing “it’s a crime against humanity to slice the breasts off minor girls who are confused about their life” would run afoul of the proposed law because it applies to the protected category of gender expression. Peterson’s comments reflect his staunch opposition to doctors prescribing irreversible puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and body mutilating surgeries on children exhibiting gender confusion.
The text of Bill C-63 states, “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
The measure defines “hate speech” as “the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” It attempts to clarify that a post or statement is not hate speech “solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, hurts or offends.”
Peterson further expressed concern that if Bill C-63 passes, “Any socially conservative viewpoint could be a hate crime.” He warned that “the bureaucracy is set up to serve informants.”
“It will just produce a class of informants,” he predicted. Peterson suggested that “It will do nothing but weaponize a new bureaucracy that has the power to expand indefinitely without the constraints of … legal precedent.”
Those found guilty of engaging in hate speech in violation of the proposed law could find themselves subject to “an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring.”
Additional penalties alleged violators could face under the proposed legislation include “an order to pay a compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice.”
Those found to have violated the proposed act could also be forced to “pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General, if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the willfulness or intent of that person, any prior discriminatory practices that that person has engaged in and that person’s ability to pay the penalty.”
In other countries with broad definitions of hate speech, those espousing traditional, biblically-based beliefs on human sexuality have faced prosecution by the state.
The most prominent example of this is Paivi Rasanen, a member of the Finnish Parliament who faced hate speech charges and years of prosecution for writing a pamphlet called “Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual relationships challenge the Christian concept of humanity” and sending out social media posts featuring Bible verses that criticized the Finnish Lutheran Church's promotion of LGBT pride month.
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com
