The past few months have seen an unprecedented uprising against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, owing to rapidly rising unemployment rates and mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis. Protestors have been gathering at Netanyahu’s residences and demanding that he resign.
Many claim that while the government was initially able to control the spread of the coronavirus, it was too quick to reopen the economy, which led to a more devastating second wave of cases and ended up only hurting small businesses and employment even more. The crashing down of the economy and public healthcare system is touted as evidence of a selfish government which is too distant from the interests of its citizens.
Additionally, Netanyahu is facing trial for charges of corruption. Though the charges first began to surface back in 2016, the indictment came last November. On top of that, it is being alleged that Netanyahu is trying to leverage the pandemic to delay court hearings. In light of the corruption charges, calling Netanyahu “Crime Minister” has emerged as a popular slogan at the protests.
The protests seem to be mostly organised and led by Israeli leftists, who hold up black flags representing their anti-Netanyahu, anti-corruption and pro-democracy stance. Some protestors have also taken to dressing up in space-themed costumes, in response to a comment by Netanyahu’s son calling the protestor’s “aliens.”
The biggests protests are those held regularly outside Netanyahu’s official residence in Jerusalem and his private home in the high-profile neighbourhood of Caesarea. The police presence at the protests has been heavy; clashes and arrestsare common. Small international protests in support of the ones in Israel have been organised in the United States and Britain.
The protests usually bring a mixed crowd of those protesting corruption charges and business In terms of demographics, some have noted that religious Israelis and Israeli Arabs have been a minority presence in the protests, perhaps the former due to political leanings and the latter due to marginalisation and disenfranchisement. At the same time, the protests are beingadmired for bringing together citizens across political lines, religious beliefs, and ages, as well as the sight of many families attending protests together.
Protests against Netanyahu 2020 Jerusalem | Source: Nir Hirshman Communication via Wikimedia
The supposed political leanings of the majority of the protestors is the key argument Netanyahu has given while dismissing them, calling them “anarchists,” while also reportedly accusing local media of giving them more coverage than they deserve. He has also denied the allegations of corruption levelled against him.
There have been many reports of counter-protests by right-wing groups, often alongside the anti-Netanyahu ones. Supporters of Netanyahu, attempted to ram a car into a protest, called protestors “germs”, pepper sprayed and attacked them with bottles and clubs. For now, the courts seem to be protecting the Israelis’ rights to freedom of speech and to protest from appeals to curtail the protests in any manner.
There is speculation regarding whether resignation is the “right” demand, since it seems unlikely that someone like Netanyahu will ever follow through on that. But the people of Israel are out in the streets in the thousands. They are called aliens or anarchists all day but denial is a facade that can only last for so long.
Benny Gantz leader of Blue and White Party | Source: Reuven Kapuchinsky via Wikimedia
Netanyahu is now the longest serving prime minister of Israel. He started the new term when his right-wing Likud party signed a coalition deal with Benny Gantz led Blue and White Party which provisioned 18 month long terms for both of them. Gantz’s term is to begin from November 2021 and some analysts predict that Netanyahu might hold early elections to deny prime ministership to Gantz and in the process, delay Israel’s next budget.
The biggest ally of Netanyahu so far in his political career was his luck which finally seems to desert him. He might be thinking that the protests can be waited out and accountability can be avoided. However this time, his political instinct and survival skill may come up short in the face of determined opposition from the common citizens of Israel.
Support us to bring the world closer
To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.
Jordan Peterson and Bill C-16: What does each side argue?
Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist by profession, shot to fame in 2016 when he began protesting against the Bill C-16. He released his own video lecture series on the subject as well—which garnered millions of views. Some people support him, while others oppose him, but who is Jordan Peterson and what are his ideas? And what is it about Bill C-16 which divided the public opinion about Peterson?
These are the questions which this article will uncover.
Who is Jordan Peterson? And what are his ideas?
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical Psychologist by profession and was a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He rose to intellectual stardom after taking a stand against “politically correct culture” and Bill C-16. He started protesting against the excesses of the cultural left. He has written several books including 12 Rules For Life, Maps of Meaning, Political Correctness, etc. While most of them are Self-help books, some are also on the idea of political correctness and its criticism, and where the left has gone wrong. He released his video lectures online on YouTube which have gathered massive views and followings, and gave him the celebrity status. Peterson’s videos on C-16 and political correctness rackedupmorethan400,000views on YouTube within about a month of posting.
Although several newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have described him as “conservative” and “conservative-leaning”, Peterson calls himself a “Classic British Liberal” and a “traditionalist”. He has said that he’s commonly mistaken to be a “right winger”, which he denies.
The University of Toronto said it had received complaints of threats against trans people on campus. There are complaints from students and faculties that Peterson’s comments are “unacceptable emotionally disturbing and painful” and have urged him to stop doing it.
On the other hand, Dr Peterson is concerned proposed federal human rights legislation "will elevate into hate speech" his refusal to use alternative pronouns. He argues that terms like "gender identity' and "gender expression" are too broad, and will be used by “radical social constructionists” to bully their opponents into submission. "One is silent slavery with all the repression and resentment that that will generate, and the other is outright conflict. Free speech is not just another value. It's the foundation of Western civilization," he told the BBC.
Many feckless young men have started following him—often using his ideas against the transgender community. Fans of Peterson and his ideologies saw the video as proof of his genius and bravery; Peterson was the avatar of reason and facts pushing back against irrational “social justice warriors” (SJWs). There were rallies both for and against Peterson in Toronto, and he made the rounds on Canadian television.
What is Bill C-16?
The law is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary compensation.
Similarly, the law also amends the CriminalCode by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318 of the Code. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
It would also extend hate speech laws to include these two terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” and make it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender, publicly inciting hatred or advocating genocide.
Peterson and Bill C-16: Arguments from both the sides
Apparently, not everyone is convinced that Peterson is a thinker of substance. Last November, fellow University of Toronto professor Ira Wells called him “the professor of piffle”—a YouTube star rather than a credible intellectual. Tabatha Southey, a columnist for the Canadian magazine Macleans, designated him “the stupid man’s smart person”.
Dr Peterson's University of Toronto colleague, Dr Lee Airton, argues he is being alarmist and indulging in "slippery slope fallacies" on the limits of free speech.
"If you actually listen and you parse out the arguments, it becomes very clear that this not about freedom of speech, that this is about reducing transgendered people's needs as excessive and illegitimate," he told the BBC.
The bill was passed in the Senate. Before it was passed, there were a lot of debates and deliberations on the bill and what kind of effects it may have.
“This bill is not only about the protections it provides, but also the message that the Parliament is delivering to all Canadians about the need to treat everybody equally,” Independent Alberta Senator Grant Mitchell, who is also a longtime advocate for trans rights, said after the bill’s passage.
Few conservative senators voted against the legislation. Conservative Manitoba Senator Don Plett has called it a threat to free speech. He alleged that he feared the bill would force him to use gender neutral pronouns when addressing trans people. There is also a largely refuted myth among conservatives that this law will allow “men to pose as women to attack them in the bathroom”. Conservative Ontario Senator Lynn Beyak said, “As a woman, why would I support Bill C-16 when feminists have fought for so many years to protect women from the violence perpetrated against them by men. This will allow men to go into women’s change rooms and bathrooms across the country.”
This bill has been intensely debated, and as the trans community is happy that the bill would provide their vulnerable community, the feminists fear it could bring threat to spaces reserved for what they refer to as “female-born women”.
Critics have also voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.
Brenda Cossman from University of Toronto | Source: CBC.CA
Brenda Cossman, law professor at the University of Toronto and director of the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, told CBC, “The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold. Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely. Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.
But now the question was, if a person disagrees to use the pronouns for a person repeatedly on purpose, will it land that person in jail? To this, Jared Brown, commercial litigator at Brown Litigation, who often works with corporate clients on employment law and human rights disputes, told CBC, “It is possible, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban. If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,”” he said.
Furthermore, he said that the path to prison does exist—but only in extreme cases—and it’s not that easy to get there, he mentions “The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”
Conclusion
A law to protect transgender rights and allowing them to identify the way they are comfortable is indeed a progressive step for Canada. Although the laws do not impose any threat on the citizen’s safety or freedom of speech, some parts of it as argued by Mark S. Bonham is a little vague. Therefore, solutions to the problems should be addressed by the government of Canada.
However, what is also clear that Jordan Peterson’s action is just spreading misinformation and hysteria among people who are unaware of the law and are contributing towards a transphobic discourse.
)_Netanyahu_portrait_Protests_against_Netanyahu_2020_Jerusalem.jpg){kind=link}
