Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, criticized the bill, saying that it would compel speech. Peterson argued that the law would classify the failure to use preferred pronouns of transgender people as hate speech. According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.[16][17][18]
The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[7] That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression to matters within federal jurisdiction, such as the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry.[8]
The bill is intended to protect individuals from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction and from being the targets of hate propaganda, as a consequence of their gender identity or their gender expression. The bill adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person's gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.[6]
The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[7] That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression to matters within federal jurisdiction, such as the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry.[8] A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement.
A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement
A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement
In the 2010s, Jordan Peterson popularized Cultural Marxism as a term by moving it into mainstream discourse.[28][35][45] Peterson blamed the conspiracy for demanding the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a threat to free speech,[28] often misusing postmodernism as a stand-in term for the conspiracy.[45][46]
An article published in 2020 in the International Journal of Jungian Studies, ′Carl Jung, John Layard and Jordan Peterson: Assessing Theories of Human Social Evolution and Their Implications for Analytical Psychology', offers a sustained critique of Peterson's thought as outlined in 12 Rules for Life.[110] The article claims that Peterson fails to take account of research in paleoanthropology, evolutionary anthropology and ethnographic studies of egalitarian societies. Such societies, which are believed to represent the ancient forager adaptation of H. sapiens, are matrilineal and lack social hierarchy. The author argues that a major sociocultural transformation occurred from this ancient adaptive complex with the onset of agriculture giving rise to modern patrilineal and hierarchical cultures. This view contrasts with Peterson's, which postulates modern social and economic structures are an outgrowth of the hierarchical impulses of our premammalian, mammalian and primate ancestors. This led the author to conclude that Peterson seems to have 'projected his own cultural biases back into the deep past.'[111]
good-faith
one wordFrom 2011 to 2019, 14 peer-reviewed retrospective medical studies from Level 1 trauma centers spanning all major geographical regions in the United States -- Northeast, Southeast, South, Southwest, Midwest, West Coast and Northwest -- all report similar findings: pit bulls are inflicting a higher prevalence of injuries than all other breeds of dogs. The majority of these studies (12 of 14) also report that pit bulls are inflicting the most severe injuries, requiring a higher number of operative interventions -- up to five times higher -- than other dog breeds.
fatalities ÷ bites
will not be consistent - that depends on how good your hospital is i guess, im not surebites ÷ dogs
will heavily depend on the society
bites ÷ human-dog interactions
will be consistent i would imagineAlthough fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
Julie was 13 when she suffered a seizure in school and was rescued by firefighters. After the incident, she began to have severe anxiety attacks that repeatedly required firefighters to intervene, and developed a trusting relationship with the men, which they allegedly later exploited.
According to Julie’s family and lawyers, the firefighters got the teenager’s phone number and began sending her flirtatious messages. Over a two-year period, she was allegedly raped by 20 men. According to her mother, she made multiple suicide attempts and is now struggling with severe disability.
#goto drug
.t killaura
are u saying that drinking 1/2 of the amount of water that would kill u is dangerous
nocoom
for a while