So-Called Hate Speech – A Fabrication That Lawyers Promote & Judges Support – P-3

by Drew Foster –
Former Mayor
East Amwell Township, N. J. –

“We’re proud of them for standing up for what they believe in.”  “I don’t think there was a single person that didn’t love them and cherish them for their involvement in the different causes.”  Bill and Lynn Schultz were speaking of their 21-year-old son, Scout, who died tragically last Saturday night at Georgia Tech.  Scout apparently believed that he was neither male nor female, neither man nor woman, and his parents and others perpetuated his belief, even glorified it, by using the pronouns “they” and “them” instead of “he” and “him.”

What does Scout’s death and the circumstances that led to it have to do with a series on the evil in the judicial system?  It is perhaps one of the finest, and saddest, commentaries on the havoc that is wreaked by the judicial system’s complete lack of conscience and morality.

The threat of so-called hate speech, a fabrication that lawyers promote and judges support, legitimizes the confused minds of individuals like Scout and criminalizes those who would share the truth.

Laws are moving toward support for and enforcement of 31 separate gender descriptors.  What?  But my parents told me, and my biology teacher told me, and my eyes tell me, and all common sense and reason tell me, there are only two genders!  In fact, the 31 descriptors are already the law in New York City, where, a business “can now be fined as much as $250,000 if establishments refuse to address someone by their preferred pronoun.”

Yes, indeed, there are only two genders.  There are only two sexes.  They are determined genetically and they are determined at conception.  My life on the farm bears this out with regularity.  Yet individuals like University of Toronto’s Professor Nicolas Matte passionately argue there is no such thing as biological sex.

Once we stray from reality, which straying is a defining quality of the judicial system today, we run into two problems.  Anything goes, and everything is a contradiction.  We’ll delve into this topic in a later article.  For now, I’ll demonstrate the point with the current topic, where we must necessarily ask some questions such as, if biological sex doesn’t exist then how can sexism exist?  The logic and ultimately the laws conflict.

Professor Matte made his astounding statement in a televised discussion centered on Dr. Jordan Peterson, who is a professor of psychology, also at the University of Toronto.  See TVOntario program at:   Dr. Peterson challenged the pending legal requirement that he use the pronouns that his students demanded.  He simply mounted a fundamental freedom of speech issue, but has been literally shouted down in various forums.  Apparently, his opponents believe that their freedom of speech is superior to his.

The referenced television program includes other guests, one of whom is Kyle Kirkup, law professor at the University of Ottawa, who discussed his view of the legal side of the pronoun and 31-gender requirement; both the current requirements and the ultimate ramifications.  As lawyers do, he attempted to downplay the potential that Dr. Peterson’s position would ultimately be criminalized, while Professor Matte was very clear in calling Peterson’s speech – his refusal to use the required pronouns – hate speech.  The concept of hate speech itself is, of course, a free speech restriction.  On the gender pronoun and 31-gender issue, the regulations do not limit what you can say; they dictate what you must say.  That is too outrageous to describe and must not be allowed in any free society from both the legal and the practical perspective, not to mention to promote the general well-being of our society..

Consider the practical.  All animals communicate with each other.  Different species have unique means, all significant for their success and survival.  The male cardinal dances and sings in a way that only the female cardinal understands and responds to.  Through the position of their ears and various postures and snorts, horses communicate leadership, submission, and danger alerts to each other that protects the herd.  The honey bee tells the rest of the colony where to find nectar using their wiggle dance.  And people use words to call the kids in for supper, share their feelings with each other, educate a school class or train an employee, and for other purposes too numerous to list.

In every human culture, words are invaluable tools and they are precise for the intended purpose.  So, go back to the opening sentences.  Did you have any indication of whom those first two statements were referring to?  How can “they” ever be considered superior to “he” or “she”?

How far will this go, if not stopped here and now?  Last evening, I was perusing an on-line catalogue, looking at backcountry backpacks.  Under specifications, one detail is “gender.”  How will that be handled if the gender laws are allowed to progress?  Will the backpack company still be able to manufacture gender-specific designs – and we’re not talking pink and blue here, but properly fitting, fully functional backpacks.  Under specifications will they have to list the applicable descriptors instead of the current and exceedingly accurate and practical, “male” and “female”?  Maybe the next time I look at backpacks, the specifications for those that are made for me will say, “male, male-to-female, MTF, crossdresser (some), and drag queen.”

Problems abound, and to what end, to whose benefit?

Scout has been portrayed as the victim of last weekend’s incident at Georgia Tech.  The LGBTQ community has been portrayed as the victim in Dr. Peterson’s ordeal at the University of Toronto.  Think through the broader picture.

Scout Schultz was, indeed, a victim, not of the police officer who shot him but, rather, of those who encouraged his confusion that led to his actions.

The police officer was also a victim.  He did what he had to do to protect himself and the broader safety of his charge, the university population as a whole, and he did it professionally and with precision, but he will have to live the rest of his life with the knowledge that he took the life of another.

Realistically, who has been harmed by Dr. Peterson’s refusal to compromise his ability to communicate?  No one can show any damage.  On the other hand, Dr. Peterson has been distracted from his primary responsibilities, although he is doing an outstanding job of communicating concerns that everyone should share with regard to free speech.  But isn’t he really the only victim?  The attacks on his statements and on his character have been vicious, and the potential for loss of job, plus fines and imprisonment, have been very real.  The true victims have been portrayed as the aggressors, the violators, because the “law” says so.

The demand for the use of 31 gender descriptors and vague pronouns serves only to distract from the truth and enable and validate confused thoughts and emotions.  If the judicial system had any integrity, and recognized the destruction to language and, much worse, the harm done to innocent people, they would not perpetuate these emotion-driven concepts.

NWS – 23 September 2017

by Drew Foster
Former Mayor of East Amwell Township

Drew Foster has served on both appointed and elected positions in municipal government in New Jersey, ultimately serving as Mayor of East Amwell Township.


Email comments and questions to Drew at:

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply