On November 19, a debate was held at the University of Toronto concerning the ethics of Jordan Peterson's protest over freedom of speech and bill C-16. The debate was controversial for a number of reasons, but mainly because of its relevance to postmodern "politically correct" culture. To me, the debate was one of the most important social dialogues in recent media.

The debate first focused on bill C-16 and other recent legislation passed by the Canadian government. Some of this legislation included the mandatory antiracist training by all teachers in Canada and an examination of their political views. Canada also institutionalized social justice tribunals where one could be fined $250,000 in legal fees for stating something deemed offensive in public space, only to lose to the tribunal. C-16 itself forces professors and students on university campuses to use the pronouns that transgendered students would like to be identified by.

Peterson believes that this legislation is a violation of free speech. He points out many professors, especially evolutionary biologist, who lost their jobs and financial stability simply for stating their own view: that there are only two genders. The response to Peterson's protest over the ethics of C-16 was, as he predicted, to silence him.

What happens when you silence your opponents with authority? What happens when you eliminate civil discourse from the community? Peterson states, "They become enemies."

The debate over bill C-16 is not only over the ethical conduct of Professor Peterson’s protest, whether it was legal or between left and right ideologies. Instead, the debate is mainly about freedom of speech, and it represents an archetype of the ideological division of society as a whole.

A quick look at the political situation in the west reveals a fractured landscape. The United States has become a hostile battleground between ideological groups since the election of Donald Trump. Since Trump’s inauguration, there have been riots on many university campuses. One group which recently emerged from the political carnage is Antifa, which is almost an ideological terrorist group. This new movement has spawned many violent riots, but the most recent example is the Berkeley riots, where alt-right activists and Antifa violently clashed. This led to considerable property damage and injuries.

Why is there so much division within the United States and other western countries? Why is there so much hostility between political movements? To discover this, we must take a detailed look at the implications of legislation such as C-16 and other censorship bills.

As stated before, C-16 would force students and professors to use the preferred pronouns of trans students. Recently, Canada also passed bill M-103 which would censor all criticism of Islam in the university setting. In these cases, we are both making someone say a certain thing, and censoring him from another. We are telling people what to say and what not to say.

C-16 and M-103 are also known as the anti-transphobia and anti-Islamophobia bills. What is meant by the words transphobia and Islamophobia? A phobia is a strong and irrational fear of an object, action or situation that leads to the avoidance of it. It’s a type of anxiety disorder. To call somebody transphobic or Islamophobic is to call them mentally ill.

This sinister play on language has produced an enveloping evil in civil discourse. I strongly believe that the introduction of words such as transphobia, homophobia and Islamophobia is an attempt to censor certain discourse for political reasons.

Language matters, and to label one's opponent as mentally ill is a powerful accusation. If M-103 was an anti-intolerance bill targeting violence against individuals for their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political views, then we would have a decent proposition. Instead, M-103 protects a specific religious group from all criticisms. Criticism of Islam is now bigotry and worthy of being called a mental illness.

As Peterson stated, censoring an opponent makes them an enemy. This dichotomy produces a black-and-white worldview where those who disagree with Sharia Law, the idea of there being more than two genders or marriage outside traditional norms are mentally ill. To be labeled transphobic is to be labeled degenerate, evil and ideologically irreconcilable.

In a debate on the British show "The Big Think" over tolerance and Islam, Peter Hitchens described what the protection of specific views could generate. "Telling people what to think goes beyond the limits of a tolerant society," he said. Instead of creating a society that tolerates other opinions, we create one which tolerates only one.

When asked about the tolerance of Muslims in the UK, Peterson replied "We do not want the precepts of Islam here and we do not want to live in a Islamic society ... that is a rational position. It is not a phobia and can't be classified as some kind of mental illness." Not wanting to state the pronouns of trans individuals or rejecting the precepts of Sharia Law are perfectly logical opinions which anyone can hold without discriminating against others.

Of course, Hitchens and Peterson believe in the protection of all individuals as equals. What they don't believe in, and what I don't believe in, is the protection of ideas.

A battle for free speech and between ideologies in this country and in the west is being waged. Free speech is not a small issue. It’s the means by which we keep our society running. It allows for the freedom of ideas and for civil discourse. The creation of these ideologically loaded words has produced a list of things you can say and cannot say. I refuse to use these words that are destroying the United States and the west and especially our universities.