In this clip with Jordan Peterson conversing with Russel Brand, Peterson says, (3m:57s)

The government, for the first time in the history of Canada and really in a move that was unprecedented in English Common Law, under English Common Law, actually mandated the content of voluntary speech.

Did Canada mandate the content of "voluntary speech" in the way Peterson is claiming? Has any other nation under Common Law ever mandated the contents of speech in this way?

No, Peterson is wrong on all points

Quick background: Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario. This is important because that determines which laws he operates under in his employment at the university.

On to the claim...

The claim by Peterson is two-fold. First it mentions Canada, and then "English Common Law", a kind of a confusing expression because English Law is one thing and Common Law is another. But let us look at the part about Canada first.

The law that Peterson is talking about is...

Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 made the following changes...

Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places.

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. 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.

The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate. Critics voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.

This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, but no provisions were made by Bill C-16 to criminalise the use of pronouns in manners that were not already criminalised, nor did it mandate that people use any specific pronouns.

So when Peterson says...

The government, for the first time in the history of Canada...

...he is blatantly wrong because no matter if it is discriminatory to not refer to people by their gender — such as for instance calling Jordan "miss Peterson" out of spite and malice — or not, this kind of law existed already before Bill C-16 and was now only extended to include transgender people.

So what about Common and English Law?

Since Bill C-16 did not change the definitions of discrimination and/or hate-speech in Canadian law it follows trivially that it did not set any precedent of the sort in Common Law and English Law as well. The only thing Bill C-16 did was to include a new demographic to become protected under already existing definitions of discrimination and hate-speech. So in both instances Peterson is wrong: this was nothing new.

But can he get convicted as a criminal for using the "wrong" pronouns?

No, he cannot be charged as a criminal for it. He may have to answer for his behaviour, and it may result in having to take responsibility for it. But this is nothing new and not unique, and nothing that Bill C-16 changed. This is because Bill C-16 affects Canadian federal law...

https://medium.com/@florence.ashley/no-pronouns-wont-send-you-to-jail-43c268cffd55

Because it is a federal law, changes to the Human Rights Act only have consequences for areas falling under federal competency such as banks and airlines.

...while Canadian universities operate under provincial charter. So Bill C-16 does not affect Jordan Peterson at all unless he switches jobs.

But ignoring that he is wrong about Bill C-16, could he still get charged with discrimination, especially since gender identity and ditto expression have been protected by provincial law since several years back?

Most interactions in day-to-day life occur in businesses and areas covered by provincial competency. In most provinces, gender identity and expression were added as protected grounds a number of years ago.

As I mentioned before, Jordan Peterson is employed at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, and the Ontario Human Right Commission has expressed the following (boldface added by me):

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

So a first glance it appears the answer is "No". However, the OHRC then references the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which tries these kinds of cases...

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that "misgendering" is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: "Gender ... may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender." The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Jordan Peterson does work in an educational service, so if he calls a person — any person — by a name they do not agree to, or purposely misgenders a person — any person — then it may very well be discrimination...

...just as it would be discrimination if anyone deliberately insisted on called Jordan Peterson "Miss Jordy" in the workplace over his protestations.

A thing to note here: Peterson claims that the discrimination laws "mandate" what he must say. This too is wrong, because the code states what he must not say; he must not call someone by the wrong name or the wrong gender. Now granted this does not leave many options. However, this is incidental because the code does not mandate a certain behaviour, it only prohibits the complementary behaviour. This is crucial because you can only ever be incriminated for things that you do, not for things that you do not do _{(unless it is specifically stated it is your duty to behave in a certain way but such is not the case here).}

What happens if someone brings a complaint of discrimination against Jordan Peterson?

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is not a court, and its proceedings are not criminal cases. So straight off the bat we can say that when Jordan Peterson claims that (boldface added by me)...

These laws are the first laws that I’ve seen that require people under the threat of legal punishment to employ certain words, to speak a certain way, instead of merely limiting what they’re allowed to say,

...then he is wrong again. The anti-discrimination code of Ontario is not a criminal code.

In brief, what will happen is that aggrieved party and the party responsible for discrimination will be called to mediation. I write "the party responsible" because it is not certain that this party will be Peterson, it may very well be the University since they are employing him and are ultimately responsible for providing the educational service.

If the mediation succeeds there will be a settlement. In this settlement the responsible party may agree to things such as...

• Pay compensatory damages to the aggrieved party (note: this is compensation, not punishment)


• Implement/change policies to prevent future discrimination


• A written apology

If a settlement is reached, the mediator will shred the all documents they received during the case and only keep the settlement.

If a settlement is not reached there will be a public hearing and an adjudicator will make a decision. Again this may result in the responsible party paying compensation, issuing policy changes and/or apologising.

The adjudicator cannot make the responsible party pay fines, nor send someone to jail.

In conclusion

Yes, Jordan Peterson may cause a discrimination case in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if he deliberately and repeatedly calls a person by the wrong name or the wrong pronoun. But...

• Bill C-16 — which was the object of Peterson's claim — did not affect him


• The discrimination laws do not mandate anything, they prohibit discriminatory behaviour


• Canadian provincial law had already protected gender identity and gender expressions since several years back


• This misnaming/misgendering would have to be deliberate and flagrant to the point of harassment


• He will not be convicted in a criminal court of law for it, i.e. he cannot be fined or jailed for it


• It is not at all certain it will be Peterson himself that will have to take responsibility for discriminating behaviour, this may fall on the University


• Laws protecting people from discrimination and hate-speech are commonplace in Common Law and English Law

So on all points of the claim, Jordan Peterson is wrong.

Yes (and no)

Jordan Peterson's main premise is that he should not be forced to use pronouns he sees as ideological - see his interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.

In this interview on LBC, he explains that since Bill C-16 would be interpreted in line with the Ontario Human Rights Code (see below) and that clearly states use of "contentious" pronouns he would have to take a stance against it.

Equating disrespect to a third person aka "Miss" Peterson(when mr Peterson is clearly a he) with having to use made up pronouns like fae/faer/faers, ze/zir/zirs, xe/xer/xim among dozens is invalid.
The presupposition this is not something new is also invalid as normally hate speech laws regulate what you must not say, not what you should say as Mr Peterson claims to be the case here.

The claim by Peterson is two-fold.

First, it mentions Canada. The law in question is Bill C-16 2016, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

Bill C-16 made the following changes:

Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places.

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion, and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offense is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
The bill, which enshrines the rights of transgender or gender-diverse Canadians by including them under human rights and hate-crime laws, has sparked some debate.

Critics (of the Bil) voiced concerns that the law will penalize citizens who do not use specific pronouns when referring to gender diverse people.

This last bit is what Jordan Peterson is expressing, and is the focal point of the debate.

Peterson has used the term "compelled speech" to describe the Canadian federal government's Bill C-16, which added "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson argues that the bill could be grounds to allow him to be fined or imprisoned if he refused to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns.1

Such claims seem to have some basis as the Ontario Human Rights Code states

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing, and services like education.

Peterson's view has been challenged by legal experts, who say that the bill would not criminalize using the wrong gender pronouns.2
The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.3

Laws aren't exhaustive but merely a way to provide the spirit to be followed by the courts and until such a case is brought before a judge to decide, the verdict is not in on the case of Bill C-16. By 2018, Daniel Woolf, the vice-chancellor of Queens University stated that "compelled speech" had become a "very divisive subject within the Ontario law profession" and was the object of much tension.4

Now for the mention of "England's Common Law" (aka English Common Law)5 6, which is a nod to the UK/Canada/USA legal systems which evolved upon it

A few examples of compelled speech, supported (and not supported) by law:

• Wikipedia page on Compelled Speech, including examples from the USA and UK


• this paper about physicians and abortion


• 
  NYC Commission on Human Rights guidelines that says they have determined that “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.”)


• A similar decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Conclusion

I keep an open stance on this claim because this is still debated between law professionals and law school professors.