Article content continued

Partway through, Schiff reveals the true nature of his grievance. His daughter is trans, making him naturally sensitive to trans issues and susceptible to misconstruing Peterson’s position.

At about the midway point, Schiff’s leaps in logic begin to create such vast expanses they can no longer even pretend to clear the gap.

If Peterson really cared about free speech, Schiff posits, he would have openly engaged in hate speech against the “already-protected groups” listed in the Human Rights Act. Since Peterson only opposed Bill C-16 it must be because he is specifically targeting trans people.

Common sense would suggest the changed variable was C-16’s “compelled speech” (i.e. the forced use of invented gender pronouns) rather than mere speech prohibition – a distinction Peterson has often cited as the catalyst for his stand.

Instead, Schiff theorizes Peterson allegedly scapegoated trans people as a means to seize power via the demagogic exploitation of society’s unconscious predisposition toward trans bashing. Schiff suggests deep-seated transphobia is evident because zoologists in the Middle Ages discriminated against the female spotted hyena on account of its penis-sized clitoris.

The piece devolves into a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of recent hit pieces and hatchet jobs on Peterson.

Schiff’s first 5,000 words not-so-subtly set the stage. He calls Peterson a “powerful orator,” twice. He belabours the supposed scapegoating of trans people, while entirely sidestepping the actual issue of compelled speech. He inelegantly references Madeleine Albright’s book, Fascism: A Warning, then quotes her description of the shared characteristics of authoritarian leaders, implying the description applies to Peterson. He follows with the tedious and debunked denigration of Peterson as an alt-right “darling,” activating the “dark desires” (a phrase he uses three times) of the mob. Finally, Schiff says he could not keep silent about Peterson “for historical reasons.” The last purposeful tug of the kimono’s sash reveals a desperately contrived Hitler analogy.