Article content continued

This does not necessarily mean the law would be struck down if it were to be challenged as unconstitutional, although it’s certainly an open question. Under Canadian law, a court can uphold a law that violates a charter-protected right, if it concludes, among other things, that the government is pursuing a legitimate objective with its law. A court might rule, for instance, that the government’s goal of protecting transgender people — a historically vulnerable population — justifies infringing people’s freedom of expression.

As the vociferous reaction to Peterson’s behaviour suggests, many people would be comfortable with this outcome. They would likely view the speech infringement as minor and well worth the trade-off of ensuring transgender people do not feel hurt, harassed or marginalized.

But the people in this group aren’t the ones who stand to be affected by this law. They would almost certainly agree to use genderless pronouns if asked, simply as a matter of courtesy. The law only kicks into action, so to speak, for the people who object to using genderless pronouns for whatever reason (perhaps principle, ideology or linguistic preference). In effect, this group becomes compelled to endorse an ideological perspective that the government stands behind.

It may seem like a good idea for the state to insist on ideological conformity when people’s feelings are at stake, or when some issue has achieved a high level of consensus, but this is a dangerous line of thinking. Society flourishes from the open expression of diverse ideas, not homogeneity on certain key ones. The potential speech violation in this case might be minor, but the principle for which it stands certainly isn’t.

Of course, this does not mean that government, organizations and individuals can or should not try to change harmful attitudes. Employers like the University of Toronto can require employees to undergo anti-bias training. The public can ostracize people who are motivated by bigotry. The government can discourage discrimination by other means. But co-opting people’s speech? In our society, that should be a step too far.

National Post